Climate policy continues to change

[Conager]

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?

-No.-

"That energy has to go somewhere." Is a nice sounding theory. "That energy" as far as has been quantified with any degree of accuracy is neglible. The tempetature variations seasonally far outpace the most dramatic (so far unverified) projections of variance.

There have been no increases the severity or frequency in any of the events he is suggesting "have to" increase because "that energy."

If his theory is actually valid that an increase in energy must manifest itself in such catastrophic events then the lack of an increase in catastrophic events therefore proves that no increase in energy has happened. He can't have it both ways. Because physics.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

-No.-

"That energy has to go somewhere." Is a nice sounding theory. "That energy" as far as has been quantified with any degree of accuracy is neglible. The tempetature variations seasonally far outpace the most dramatic (so far unverified) projections of variance.

There have been no increases the severity or frequency in any of the events he is suggesting "have to" increase because "that energy."

If his theory is actually valid that an increase in energy must manifest itself in such catastrophic events then the lack of an increase in catastrophic events therefore proves that no increase in energy has happened. He can't have it both ways. Because physics.

Cite please.

 

[Conager]

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.

What sort of "storm" are you worried about wiping out Miami? A haboob?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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.

Clearly, that is not safe.



What is your proof to being an expert? I do not know why I have to provide my name and my degree unless you go first. PM me. I double-dawg dare you...

So you "said" storm. Define storm. Show the history of "storms" and show that they are worse now than ever before. Did you drop ice-nine into the ocean?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

-No.-

"That energy has to go somewhere." Is a nice sounding theory. "That energy" as far as has been quantified with any degree of accuracy is neglible. The tempetature variations seasonally far outpace the most dramatic (so far unverified) projections of variance.

There have been no increases the severity or frequency in any of the events he is suggesting "have to" increase because "that energy."

If his theory is actually valid that an increase in energy must manifest itself in such catastrophic events then the lack of an increase in catastrophic events therefore proves that no increase in energy has happened. He can't have it both ways. Because physics.

Look. The Sargasso Sea is calmer than it has been in centuries! That has to prove something!


The only flaw seems to be the weakening in the power of the Bermuda Triangle...

 

[Conager]

Cite please.

Cite please on "that energy"; outside of the margin of error, please.

While you are at it, explain why there is no increase in the frequency and severity of catostrophic weather events, as prophesied in the Holy writings of the Church of climatology.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Clearly, that is not safe.



What is your proof to being an expert? I do not know why I have to provide my name and my degree unless you go first. PM me. I double-dawg dare you...

So you "said" storm. Define storm. Show the history of "storms" and show that they are worse now than ever before. Did you drop ice-nine into the ocean?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, you are. I'm not saying you HAVE to provide your background, I'm merely stating that you can't claim to be an expert in something and balk at the idea of someone asking you to prove your credentials while expecting to be taken seriously. This is an open forum, you made the claim here, you back the claim up here.

I'll go with the scientific definition of storm, and I never claimed they were worse now than ever. I am willing to have a discussion on what I actually write, but you seem desperate to try to ascribe me a position and debate that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Cite please on "that energy"; outside of the margin of error, please.

While you are at it, explain why there is no increase in the frequency and severity of catostrophic weather events, as prophesied in the Holy writings of the Church of climatology.

I'm happy to wait for your cite.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not claiming to be an expert, you are. I am claiming to be educated. I'm not saying you HAVE to provide your background, I'm merely stating that you can't claim to be an expert in something and balk at the idea of someone asking you to prove your credentials while expecting to be taken seriously. This is an open forum, you made the claim here, you back the claim up here.

I'll go with the scientific definition of storm, and I never claimed they were worse now than ever. I am willing to have a discussion on what I actually write, but you seem desperate to try to ascribe me a position and debate that.

I am not claiming to be an expert. I am saying that I can think for myself based on my experience. I've been here since 1999. I was working as a "scientist" in the field of modeling during those years. I also earned degrees in Computer Science and Mathematics prior to that time. The Marines trained me in meteorology. If you are demanding a resume, you will not get one; you do not have enough money to hire me any more than the inclination. Nor can you properly ascertain in any way, shape or form that there is warming and it is "going somewhere." You just want to believe.

You need to ask yourself, why?

Why do I need this to be true?

 

[trysail]

"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?

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. You can't possibly be that dense. Nobody could possibly be that dense.


Lindzen is a fucking MIT physicist. Do you think that just might make him HIGHLY QUALIFIED to evaluate a conjecture based on physics?


​

 

[water505]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. You can't possibly be that dense. Nobody could possibly be that dense.


Lindzen is a fucking MIT physicist. Do you think that just might make him HIGHLY QUALIFIED to evaluate a conjecture based on physics?


​

We are dealing with people here who are so emotionally invested in this fairy tale they are incapable of accepting the facts - that the methodology to come up with "97% of scientists agree" was faulty. There is no way around it. They took a subset of a subset and said 97% of that subset agrees with one another even more vague and nonsensical subset. Using the same faulty methodology if someone claimed that "85% of gay men are child molesters" they wouldn't hesitate for a second to point
out why it was wrong.

They can't handle the truth....just like when they lost the election.

 

[water505]

Like so many similar articles this one debunks the 97% claim and exposes the unscientific methodology used to come up with the number.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Can any of you at least be honest enough to admit the claim is false?

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

 

[water505]

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

The math is in every single one of the links, and the math doesn't add up. They clearly explain why the 97% figure is wrong.

You clearly did not read any of the articles or you have shit for brains and don't understand that 1+1 does not equal 35.

 

[about_average]

It ain't copyright you dumbfuck.

Really? I don't see anything on the web site you copied it from saying it's public domain.
Maybe you can also C&P where it says that.

What a maroon.

And you call others "dumbfuck" LOL

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

Oh, yeah, and economist is certainly an authority on climatology.
At least the other guy is a meteorologist who says, "I think that most of the warming we've seen could well be natural"

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I am not claiming to be an expert. I am saying that I can think for myself based on my experience. I've been here since 1999. I was working as a "scientist" in the field of modeling during those years. I also earned degrees in Computer Science and Mathematics prior to that time. The Marines trained me in meteorology. If you are demanding a resume, you will not get one; you do not have enough money to hire me any more than the inclination. Nor can you properly ascertain in any way, shape or form that there is warming and it is "going somewhere." You just want to believe.

You need to ask yourself, why?

Why do I need this to be true?

We may disagree on your claim of being an expert. Based on what you wrote in posts #116 & 120 you certainly sound like you're claiming a certain level of expertise over the rest of the posters.

Again, I'm not demanding anything, I'm simply letting you know that I'm not going to believe you just because you say so. You're claiming you have degrees in certain fields, I'm asking you to prove it. You're claiming to have been trained in meteorology, I'm asking for you to prove it. You're claiming to have worked in the field of modeling, I'm asking you to prove it.

I'm also asking you to stop assigning me positions I've never adopted. I've never said that I need this to be true. I'm simply disagreeing with you over what scientists in their field claim the preponderance of evidence shows. If it turns out these scientists are wrong, my life doesn't change much if at all.

 

[about_average]

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

It was spot on. Your argument is, "It's a myth because there tons of links that say it is."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. You can't possibly be that dense. Nobody could possibly be that dense.


Lindzen is a fucking MIT physicist. Do you think that just might make him HIGHLY QUALIFIED to evaluate a conjecture based on physics?


​

I never said anything about his qualifications to do anything. Instead of lashing out at me with personal attacks perhaps you should better invest that energy into reading the thread. We're both in 100% agreement that Lindzen is not a climate scientist.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The math is in every single one of the links, and the math doesn't add up. They clearly explain why the 97% figure is wrong.

You clearly did not read any of the articles or you have shit for brains and don't understand that 1+1 does not equal 35.

Awesome, cite the math.

# of climate scientists publishing work who believe in climate change
__________________________________________________________
# of climate scientists publishing work

Let's see what you've got.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We may disagree on your claim of being an expert. Based on what you wrote in posts #116 & 120 you certainly sound like you're claiming a certain level of expertise over the rest of the posters.

Again, I'm not demanding anything, I'm simply letting you know that I'm not going to believe you just because you say so. You're claiming you have degrees in certain fields, I'm asking you to prove it. You're claiming to have been trained in meteorology, I'm asking for you to prove it. You're claiming to have worked in the field of modeling, I'm asking you to prove it.

I'm also asking you to stop assigning me positions I've never adopted. I've never said that I need this to be true. I'm simply disagreeing with you over what scientists in their field claim the preponderance of evidence shows. If it turns out these scientists are wrong, my life doesn't change much if at all.

I don't expect you to believe me.

Years ago, when it came to martial arts, I sent absolute proof of my expertise to Laurel and manu which included my personal identity.

I will not "prove" it to you. All that you have is the integrity of those things I posted as regards to both begins before this became a political football. Because you want me to be wrong, even if I did as I did before, provide photocopies of my degrees and the video links of my athletes in action, I doubt that it would be anything other than an attack angle for you.

If you will provide me proof of your degrees in Science, then I will provide you of proof of mine.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Database error.


Too many of these lately...

 

[about_average]

Like so many similar articles this one debunks the 97% claim and exposes the unscientific methodology used to come up with the number.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Can any of you at least be honest enough to admit the claim is false?

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

You obviously didn't read the first article you linked to because it says right in it is was based on this one.

And you bitch because you think people don't read your links, when you obviously haven't.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't expect you to believe me.

Years ago, when it came to martial arts, I sent absolute proof of my expertise to Laurel and manu which included my personal identity.

I will not "prove" it to you. All that you have is the integrity of those things I posted as regards to both begins before this became a political football. Because you want me to be wrong, even if I did as I did before, provide photocopies of my degrees and the video links of my athletes in action, I doubt that it would be anything other than an attack angle for you.

If you will provide me proof of your degrees in Science, then I will provide you of proof of mine.

That's cool, as long as you're willing to be honest that you're not going to prove any of the claims that you've made.

This is like the 4th time in a row you've done this. I've never claimed to have a degree in science, or a degree of any kind for that matter. Don't play a game of ascribing me a position when you got called out for not providing any proof to back up your claims.

 

[trysail]

We are dealing with people here who are so emotionally invested in this fairy tale they are incapable of accepting the facts - that the methodology to come up with "97% of scientists agree" was faulty. There is no way around it. They took a subset of a subset and said 97% of that subset agrees with one another even more vague and nonsensical subset. Using the same faulty methodology if someone claimed that "85% of gay men are child molesters" they wouldn't hesitate for a second to point
out why it was wrong.

They can't handle the truth....just like when they lost the election.

...What CAGW did which the other advocacy cause examples did not is capture a broad swath of diverse special interest advocacy from outside the climate M[odern] S[cientific] C[ontroversies] per se. It was a locomotive to which many wagons got hitched. Developing nations saw the Green Climate Fund potential for extortion. Greenpeace saw the anti-industrial potential. WWF saw the fundraising potential in ‘endangered’ polar bears. Academics saw lucrative grant and career opportunities; Shukla and his wife personally took out over $6 million through his ‘research foundation’. CAGW became a real gravy train. That is why it has gone on so long despite its many serious flaws...​

-Rud Istvan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01...rsies-part-5-common-elements/#comment-2387134







​

 

[trysail]

I never said anything about his qualifications to do anything. Instead of lashing out at me with personal attacks perhaps you should better invest that energy into reading the thread. We're both in 100% agreement that Lindzen is not a climate scientist.

Fuck you. You're a goddamn moron.

Why don't you tell us what a "climate scientist" is.



Kindly inform us what a "climate scientist" is.


Is it a dendrochronologist ( Michael "Piltdown" Mann)?
Is it a railway engineer ( Rajenda Pachauri )?
Is it a hydrologist ( Peter Gleick )?
Is it an English major ( Bill McKibben )?



​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's cool, as long as you're willing to be honest that you're not going to prove any of the claims that you've made.

This is like the 4th time in a row you've done this. I've never claimed to have a degree in science, or a degree of any kind for that matter. Don't play a game of ascribing me a position when you got called out for not providing any proof to back up your claims.

I'm sorry.

How do I prove my degree?

Similarly, how do you prove that you have a degree that gives you any standing in the debate?

Or are you only right because I will not provide you with my credentials while you freely argue with no credential other than the fallacy of argument by expertise?

What do you bring to the table of scientific expertise other than your belief? I mean honestly, how do you form your opinions when you have no real understanding of the issue?