Climate policy continues to change

[water505]

Actually, it's true, substantially, although when it comes to scientific consensus the picture is a bit more complicated than "97% of scientists agree."

A bit more complicated is liberalspeak for their putrid lies being facts.

97% of scientists absolutely do not agree GW is man made and/or a threat to the planet.

 

[about_average]

A bit more complicated is liberalspeak for their putrid lies being facts.

97% of scientists absolutely do not agree GW is man made and/or a threat to the planet.

Loosing your short term memory?

 

[water505]

So you said before.

Got any evidence to support your theory of current climate?

I don't have a theory. It's climate. I don't have a theory about the ocean being wet, either.

This is exactly what happens when people like you are faced with facts that destroy their phony narrative...you change the subject.

 

[water505]

Loosing your short term memory?

My memory is fine. Can't say the same for your spelling skills, schmuck.

You're such an easy target. Don't ever change.

 

[about_average]

I don't have a theory. It's climate. I don't have a theory about the ocean being wet, either.

This is exactly what happens when people like you are faced with facts that destroy their phony narrative...you change the subject.

A couple of problems with your post.
1 - you haven't provided any facts, so you didn't destroy anything.
2 - he stayed right on the topic of climate, you're the one who changed it to oceans being wet.

 

[about_average]

My memory is fine. Can't say the same for your spelling skills, schmuck.

You're such an easy target. Don't ever change.

So you intentionally posted the exact same answer to the same quote six minutes after posting it the first time.

BTW, my typo was probably a Freudian slip referencing your grip on reality.

 

[about_average]

They'd better learn to have more. What's your proposed solution?

I don't really have one. I've lost hope we'll ever have science committees in either house that will be made up of people who understand science.
Hell, we've just elected a vice president who doesn't understand what the word "theory" means when it come to scientific theory.
If you can't get the basics right, there's little hope.

 

[GiaCat]

Weather science has become political science.

 

[trysail]

by Marlo Lewis, Ph.D.

In 2006–2007, authors like Al Gore, Joseph Romm, and Fred Pearce popularized scary climate change impact scenarios, such as ice sheet disintegration and catastrophic sea-level rise, dramatic increases in extreme-weather frequency and/or severity, and climate-destabilizing releases of CO2 and methane from melting permafrost. Recent studies undercut the credibility of those scenarios. A partial list follows:

King et al. (2012): The rate of Antarctic ice loss is not accelerating and translates to less than one inch of sea-level rise per century.

Faezeh et al. (2013): Greenland’s four main outlet glaciers are projected to contribute 19 to 30 millimeters (0.7 to 1.1 inches) to sea level rise by 2200 under a mid-range warming scenario (2.8°C by 2100) and 29 to 49 millimeters (1.1 to 1.9 inches) under a high-end warming scenario (4.5°C by 2100).

Weinkle et al. (2012): There is no trend in the strength or frequency of land-falling hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years.

Chenoweth and Divine (2012): There is no trend in the strength or frequency of tropical cyclones in the main Atlantic hurricane development corridor over the past 370 years.

Bouwer (2011): There is no trend in hurricane-related damages since 1900 once economic loss data are adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and the consumer price index.

NOAA: There is no trend since 1950 in the frequency of strong (F3-F5) U.S. tornadoes.

National Climate Data Center: There is no trend since 1900 in U.S. soil moisture as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

Hirsch and Ryberg (2011): There is no trend in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years.

Dmitrenko et al. (2011): Even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested, permafrost thaw in the Siberian shelf will not exceed 10 meters in depth by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium, whereas the bulk of methane stores are trapped roughly 200 meters below the sea floor.

Kessler et al. (2011): Microbes digested the methane released during the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Any warming-induced “large-scale releases of methane from hydrate in the deep ocean are likely to be met by a similarly rapid methanotrophic response.”

Sistla et al. (2013): Over the past two decades, warming increased net eco-system carbon storage in the Arctic tundra as the growth of woody biomass outpaced the increase in CO2 emissions from subsoil microbial activity.

Goklany (2009): Global deaths and death rates related to extreme weather have declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since the 1920s.

Range et al. (2012): There is no evidence of CO2-related mortalities of juvenile or adult mussels “even under conditions that far exceed the worst-case scenarios for future ocean acidification.”​

​

​

​

Computer models of immensely complex (possibly chaotic), non-linear, dynamic systems using coefficients that are unknown in combination with uncertain assumptions are neither science nor evidence.


Anyone who tries to tell you that the immature, primitive field known as “climate science” represents “settled science” is not being truthful.

​

 

[trysail]

I don't really have one. I've lost hope we'll ever have science committees in either house that will be made up of people who understand science.
Hell, we've just elected a vice president who doesn't understand what the word "theory" means when it come to scientific theory.
If you can't get the basics right, there's little hope.

You have completely confused bench top, closed system laboratory experiments with climate.

That's so wrong that it's laughable.

Only someone who is horribly gullible or scientifically illiterate could make such a colossal error.

You have absolutely no (as in zero) evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change.


​

 

[about_average]

You have completely confused bench top, closed system laboratory experiments with climate.
That's so wrong that it's laughable.
Only someone who is horribly gullible or scientifically illiterate could make such a colossal error.
You have absolutely no (as in zero) evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

This, coming from someone who doesn't understand something as simple as the purpose of quoting a post.

So yeah, I don't think I'm going to care much about all your C&P.

 

[butters]

trysail, regardless of my opinion on how much input man has on rising global temperatures, you must have seen laurel state countless times that c&p needs to be limited due to copyright infringement. i believe around 4 paragraphs of a long article plus links is about the maximum you should be using - and not just yourself. hashy had to reincarnate for continued overuse and others have had repeated warnings. please respect the rules of the site as you'd expect others to.

 

[about_average]

trysail, regardless of my opinion on how much input man has on rising global temperatures, you must have seen laurel state countless times that c&p needs to be limited due to copyright infringement. i believe around 4 paragraphs of a long article plus links is about the maximum you should be using - and not just yourself. hashy had to reincarnate for continued overuse and others have had repeated warnings. please respect the rules of the site as you'd expect others to.

You're wasting your time.
Trysail and the law

 

[trysail]

It ain't copyright you dumbfuck.

What a maroon.

​

 

[trysail]

How To Tell Who's Lying To You (Climate Science Edition)
by Francis Menton
"The Manhattan Contrarian"

Scott Adams -- known, among other things, as the cartoonist behind the Dilbert series -- has an excellent blog on which he posts something thoughtful nearly every day. His particular interest is in the arts of persuasion. Recently he has dipped his toe into the subject of "climate science," with a focus on the apparent inability of partisans on either side of the debate ever to convince a single person to come over from the other side. Now, suppose you come to this debate with no scientific expertise and no ax to grind for either side. The debate has very significant public policy implications, and understanding it is important to being an informed voter. How are you to supposed to evaluate the arguments and come to a view? Adams comments:

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Adams on this one. If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you. This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial. The method is this: look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side. If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem. And rightfully so.

I'll give just a few examples of this phenomenon relevant to the climate change issue...



Read the rest here:

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition

​

​

 

[Disgustipated]

You have completely confused bench top, closed system laboratory experiments with climate.

That's so wrong that it's laughable.

Only someone who is horribly gullible or scientifically illiterate could make such a colossal error.

You have absolutely no (as in zero) evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change.


​

You should probably back up your own claims with scientific facts if your argument against AA is lack of scientific facts.

 

[OldJourno]

You should probably back up your own claims with scientific facts if your argument against AA is lack of scientific facts.

Post 84 seems to fit the bill.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A bit more complicated is liberalspeak for their putrid lies being facts.

97% of scientists absolutely do not agree GW is man made and/or a threat to the planet.

More than 95% of climatologists do agree on exactly those points. Scientists in other fields, of course, have no particular qualifications to say.

 

[water505]

More than 95% of climatologists do agree on exactly those points. Scientists in other fields, of course, have no particular qualifications to say.

You pulled that number out of your ass.

Google "97% of scientists agree myth."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You pulled that number out of your ass.

Google "97% of scientists agree myth."

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[KingOrfeo]

From Skeptical Science:

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

 

[water505]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I don't care what NASA says. It's a myth. Google what I said above and get back to me.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't care what NASA says. It's a myth. Google what I said above and get back to me.

I googled it. That's how I found the Skeptical Science link above. Since the first and second hits were from WSJ and Forbes respectively, we may safely dismiss them.

 

[water505]

From Skeptical Science:

Yawn....

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't care what NASA says. It's a myth. Google what I said above and get back to me.

That's pretty much the point you've established throughout the thread, you don't care what scientists say, you're going to believe in whatever magic you want to believe.

ps this is what came up when I Googled