Climate policy continues to change

[water505]

KO, you didn't look very hard, but I understand. Life is tough.

There are so many links debunking the myth it's impossible to count them all.

You people cling to this shit like religious fanatics.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3860/14715926700_870bb855e9_z.jpg

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

KO, you didn't look very hard, but I understand. Life is tough.

There are so many links debunking the myth it's impossible to count them all.

You people cling to this shit like religious fanatics.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3860/14715926700_870bb855e9_z.jpg

Perhaps you'd like to provide a cite that proves your position.

 

[water505]

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

Okay, Buckwheat. There are dozens of sources and scientists that destroy the method used to invent the 97% myth. I'll make it easy for you. Here is just one:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24484

 

[water505]

Perhaps you'd like to provide a cite that proves your position.

I KNEW you were going to say that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not my position, dude. The methods used to come up with the 97% figure are totally flawed.

 

[water505]

You won't like that link so here is another:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Finally, Google "97% of scientists agree myth."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Okay, Buckwheat. There are dozens of sources and scientists that destroy the method used to invent the 97% myth. I'll make it easy for you. Here is just one:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24484

I got about two sentences in and started laughing.

From your link.

"In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem."

They're changing the claim by adding in the magical word "dangerous". Take a look at what I provided and this. This is Qunager level ascription.

"However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists -- such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy -- who question the "consensus" view.
Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not proven in the studies themselves."

Lindzen is not a climate scientist. Nature magazine is not a peer reviewed journal.

Care to try again?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You won't like that link so here is another:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Finally, Google "97% of scientists agree myth."

It's not a matter or liking things, it's a matter of science. Science is real whether a person likes it or not.

 

[water505]

I got about two sentences in and started laughing.

From your link.

"In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem."

They're changing the claim by adding in the magical word "dangerous". Take a look at what I provided and this. This is Qunager level ascription.

"However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists -- such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy -- who question the "consensus" view.
Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not proven in the studies themselves."

Lindzen is not a climate scientist. Nature magazine is not a peer reviewed journal.

Care to try again?

Just like I thought. Once you realize the facts from so many sources destroy your narrative you stopped reading and didn't bother looking any further. Do you know what that's called?

It's your religion and you're a devoted fanatic. You worship at the altar of man made global warming and nothing will EVER change your mind.

 

[water505]

It's not a matter or liking things, it's a matter of science. Science is real whether a person likes it or not.

Math is real, and the math and methods used to come up with the 97% figure were faulty. Period. You'll just keep deflecting. Have at it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

KO, you didn't look very hard, but I understand. Life is tough.

There are so many links debunking the myth it's impossible to count them all.

There are also so many links proving Obama's birth certificate is fake it's impossible to count them all.

 

[water505]

There are also so many links proving Obama's birth certificate is fake it's impossible to count them all.

Now that was really, really, stupid, and a piss poor attempt to deflect the subject.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Just like I thought. Once you realize the facts from so many sources destroy your narrative you stopped reading and didn't bother looking any further. Do you know what that's called?

It's your religion and you're a devoted fanatic. You worship at the altar of man made global warming and nothing will EVER change your mind.

What makes you think I didn't read the entire article? I just noted that it didn't take long to find out the info in your link wasn't scientific.

You keep stamping your feet and insisting I believe in your magic. I'm going to go with science. If you have some science that shows it isn't true, I'm willing to look at it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Math is real, and the math and methods used to come up with the 97% figure were faulty. Period. You'll just keep deflecting. Have at it.

I agree 100% that math is real. Let's see your math.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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

From the Washington Post:

The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.

The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.

The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease....

Eggs, salt, butter, coffee, all of that settled science of consensus that was known to be true by the vast majority of Scientists in the field (and out of the field).

If I were you, I would examine how a climatologist earns his funding and from who...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Now that was really, really, stupid, and a piss poor attempt to deflect the subject.

It's not deflection. He's saying the same thing I am, if you want to have a discussion on science, you need to be scientific.

Saying "Google it" isn't being scientific.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've actually talked about being in the science of modeling and took their published code and pointed out the hard-coded "fixes" and it went nowhere. I have pointed out the nature of chaotic systems and the complexity of trying to model them and the math involved and it went nowhere. I've pointed out that I trained in meteorology and it went nowhere.

You are dealing with a fucking doomsday cult.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I've pointed out that I trained in meteorology and it went nowhere.

You are dealing with a fucking doomsday cult.

Go back and finish your training and maybe people will start to take you seriously.

Got a cite for that "doomsday" stuff?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Now that was really, really, stupid, and a piss poor attempt to deflect the subject.

I was not changing the subject to Obama's birth certificate, I was making the entirely relevant point that "so many links" constitutes proof of nothing.

 

[phrodeau]

Math is real, and the math and methods used to come up with the 97% figure were faulty. Period. You'll just keep deflecting. Have at it.

You just keep posting things that other people have told you. Why should we believe them?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Go back and finish your training and maybe people will start to take you seriously.

Got a cite for that "doomsday" stuff?

*chuckle*

"Climatology" is a very new branch of the sciences and has no proven track record but has been glommed onto by the Progressive/Socialist movement as a perfect vehicle, by selling the Chicken Little story that they sky is going to kill us in order to get us to voluntarily redistribute the Wealth of a Nation(s).

In weather, a fairly modest chaotic system we have hundreds of models and, as we see in hurricane season and in the five day forecast, they are not always infallible and yet somehow, some people seem to think that the "climate" is an easier nut to crack.

If you had any training, even a beginning, in these fields maybe I would take you seriously.

I don't need a cite. The constant consternation and call to action is all we need to make that connection. You would not be arguing that it is absolutely true, sans any real science degree, unless it had become a political-religious need for you in order to achieve a Progressive goal be it ecological or in the holy spirit of social justice.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You just keep posting things that other people have told you. Why should we believe them?

Do you do any different?

Why should we believe you?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I was not changing the subject to Obama's birth certificate, I was making the entirely relevant point that "so many links" constitutes proof of nothing.

This is correct.

And having more links to the "truth" of GlowBall Warning is no more science than the ability to make a case on your own, as is the challenge. To date Ishmael and I are the few who have been able to do that based upon past training and career experience.

There are people here whom I cannot argue law with, and i submit to that, but the very same people think they can argue science with me.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

*chuckle*

"Climatology" is a very new branch of the sciences and has no proven track record but has been glommed onto by the Progressive/Socialist movement as a perfect vehicle, by selling the Chicken Little story that they sky is going to kill us in order to get us to voluntarily redistribute the Wealth of a Nation(s).

In weather, a fairly modest chaotic system we have hundreds of models and, as we see in hurricane season and in the five day forecast, they are not always infallible and yet somehow, some people seem to think that the "climate" is an easier nut to crack.

If you had any training, even a beginning, in these fields maybe I would take you seriously.

I don't need a cite. The constant consternation and call to action is all we need to make that connection. You would not be arguing that it is absolutely true, sans any real science degree, unless it had become a political-religious need for you in order to achieve a Progressive goal be it ecological or in the holy spirit of social justice.

I think the first thing you should do is back up your claim that you've had any training in this field. Based on what you wrote I'm assuming you'll be showing a degree in Meteorology.

You're ascribing me and as far as I can tell climate scientists with a position that none of us have adopted, specifically that the humanity will end because of the changes in climate. I've already refuted this point. Climate scientists have said there will be more droughts, heat waves, and floods (and not biblical proportion floods). That's hardly a call for the end of humanity. If you have evidence of a climate scientist saying that humanity won't make it, please post it.

I can't speak for others, but my posting in this thread is because I feel very strongly that I know how to manage my money better than the government. We've already had droughts, heat waves, and floods, all of those things encourage the government to take my money & redistribute it. While I do support taxes for roads, education and safety (all things I benefit from), I do not advocate taxes for things that are avoidable. Yes, there have always been droughts, floods & heat waves, but we're now seeing them in areas we have not before like populated areas. I can't speak for you, but I for one don't want to have to pay for the city of Miami to relocate.

I agree that predicting the weather is a complex and difficult thing to do. However, I'm talking about information scientists have already collected, and the rules of science. If the oceans are getting warmer, that energy needs to go somewhere, and the somewhere it will go is to creating storms, & floods.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think the first thing you should do is back up your claim that you've had any training in this field. Based on what you wrote I'm assuming you'll be showing a degree in Meteorology. (1)

You're ascribing me and as far as I can tell climate scientists with a position that none of us have adopted, specifically that the humanity will end because of the changes in climate. I've already refuted this point. Climate scientists have said there will be more droughts, heat waves, and floods (and not biblical proportion floods). That's hardly a call for the end of humanity. If you have evidence of a climate scientist saying that humanity won't make it, please post it.

I can't speak for others, but my posting in this thread is because I feel very strongly that I know how to manage my money better than the government. We've already had droughts, heat waves, and floods, all of those things encourage the government to take my money & redistribute it. While I do support taxes for roads, education and safety (all things I benefit from), I do not advocate taxes for things that are avoidable. Yes, there have always been droughts, floods & heat waves, but we're now seeing them in areas we have not before like populated areas. I can't speak for you, but I for one don't want to have to pay for the city of Miami to relocate.

I agree that predicting the weather is a complex and difficult thing to do. However, I'm talking about information scientists have already collected, and the rules of science. If the oceans are getting warmer, that energy needs to go somewhere, and the somewhere it will go is to creating storms, & floods.

1. Lack of reading comprehension.

As for the rest, if you cannot, on your own, based on your education in the sciences, validate the claims of the "climatologists," then you have nothing other than what you believe to be true, that weather is changing dramatically and for the worse.* As someone who has studied the weather and its patterns, put into a historical context, it's just not that different.

As the sword saint Musashi advises us,

Keep a distanced view of near things and a near view of distanced things.




* Take hurricane activity, for example. It is clearly on the upswing. No?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1. Lack of reading comprehension.

As for the rest, if you cannot, on your own, based on your education in the sciences, validate the claims of the "climatologists," then you have nothing other than what you believe to be true, that weather is changing dramatically and for the worse.* As someone who has studied the weather and its patterns, put into a historical context, it's just not that different.

As the sword saint Musashi advises us,

Keep a distanced view of near things and a near view of distanced things.




* Take hurricane activity, for example. It is clearly on the upswing. No?

Based on your use of the bolded term, it's very safe to say I have a stronger grasp of reading than you do.

So I'm just supposed to take you at your word that you have any background at all in science? You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing. If you'd like to be taken as seriously as you demand you'll need to show proof.

I never said hurricane, I specifically said storm.