Climate policy continues to change

[4est_4est_Gump]

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 )?



​

He does not get the fact that it is a recent invention of the Progressive movement. The only goal of which is to redistribute wealth. They don't give a shit if climate is changing or not. The fear allows them to eliminate Liberalism and replace it with Socialism.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, I don't. I challenge the OP to show that any climate scientist has said "end times", not a one of them have. Sure, it's possible they were using hyperbole, but I really doubt it.

Climate scientists have warned about droughts, heat waves, & floods. They've also said there may be migrations because food may become scarce in some areas. That's hardly "end of days" stuff.

Again, that is a semantic dodge.

As I said before, the calls to urgent action as well as Algore belie your misdirection.

They are indeed, in a religious manner, predicting disaster, end of times, the oceuans rising, etc., ...



No, they are not warning about the usual. They are trying to adapt the usual to a political outcome, the redistribution of wealth.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

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?

I would imagine the same way you proved you had a degree to those who employed you.

Again, not claiming to be an expert. I'm providing cites to what experts say the evidence shows.

For the 2nd time, I'm not claiming to be right. You're assigning me a position again. I'm just disagreeing with some people on what scientists in their field have evidence to prove.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Again, that is a semantic dodge.

As I said before, the calls to urgent action as well as Algore belie your misdirection.

They are indeed, in a religious manner, predicting disaster, end of times, the oceuans rising, etc., ...



No, they are not warning about the usual. They are trying to adapt the usual to a political outcome, the redistribution of wealth.

I'm not Al Gore.

Still waiting for you to name one climate scientist who has made those claims.

 

[water505]

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.

One thing is certain - you're either dumber than a sack of doorknobs or you're being intellectually dishonest.

Like it or not the methodology used to arrive at the 97% figure was provided by the people who created it, and it's faulty. To say otherwise is denying reality. Numbers never lie. It's like claiming 1x3=16 and trying to use false data to back it up. It just doesn't work.

I have no idea why you chose to say you didn't have a degree. I never brought it up. Other than trying to change the subject it's totally irrelevant.

Give it up.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

One thing is certain - you're either dumber than a sack of doorknobs or you're being intellectually dishonest.

Like it or not the methodology used to arrive at the 97% figure was provided by the people who created it, and it's faulty. To say otherwise is denying reality. Numbers never lie. It's like claiming 1x3=16 and trying to use false data to back it up. It just doesn't work.

I have no idea why you chose to say you didn't have a degree. I never brought it up. Other than trying to change the subject it's totally irrelevant.

Give it up.

Dude, I gave up on you hours ago.

You insisted it was about math. I asked you to prove the math, even gave you the formula, you balked. The links that you provided even agreed with what I posted.

No one said you brought it up. You're using a reply that was directed at AJ.

 

[water505]

Dude, I gave up on you hours ago.

So why do you keep responding?

I'm done discussing this with you. Try debating yourself. Never mind. You'll lose.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So why do you keep responding?

I'm done discussing this with you. Try debating yourself. Never mind. You'll lose.

You were done hours ago. I'm sorry you don't like what the evidence shows. Feel free to continue to believe in your magical world.

 

[about_average]

Who in this thread has claimed that 97% of scientists agree? Actually no one. The OP said 99.9% but I assume that was hyperbole.
The only other person who made the "97% of scientists" claim is water and trysail, and I'm not sure why they keep bringing up that number since no one here is making the claim.

The percentage, as I mentioned a while back, when water made the claim, really depends on the the field of the scientists questioned.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Expertise_vs_Consensus_med.jpg

 

[about_average]

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.

It doesn't really matter if he's a climatologist anyway, no one has made the claim that 100% of actively publishing climatologists are in agreement on the topic.

For the person ( I think it was the "maroon") who asked what a climatologist is: http://www.environmentalscience.org/career/climatologist

 

[phrodeau]

Who in this thread has claimed that 97% of scientists agree? Actually no one. The OP said 99.9% but I assume that was hyperbole.
The only other person who made the "97% of scientists" claim is water and trysail, and I'm not sure why they keep bringing up that number since no one here is making the claim.

The percentage, as I mentioned a while back, when water made the claim, really depends on the the field of the scientists questioned.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Expertise_vs_Consensus_med.jpg

It's argumentum ad populum, which isn't a valid argument. They say that scientists are making this argument, when in fact it's only bloggers and amateurs.

You see, they can totally refute the bloggers and the amateurs. It's the scientists that they aren't able to refute.

 

[Christobal]

One thing about being old is I remember a lot of stuff we have been told. In the 70's we were told an ice age was coming. We should prepare and alter everything on the planet.

Now we are here. The whole paradigm has been turned upside down. The scientist that predicted global cooling has now said the science was wrong. He said Now it's global warming proved by science.

Relax.

I have been warned of the 27,000 ways I will die.

Be happy.

 

[water505]

Here is the bottom line: the methodology provided by the people who made the 97% claim is faulty. If you believe their methodology was misrepresented by people with an ulterior motive, a normal person interested in the truth would try to find out exactly what their methodology was. Repeatedly asking for evidence to support their methodology was faulty is a clear sign you either haven't read anything about it, you're intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid. It's like asking for proof of simple arithmetic.

Sorry, but there is no Santa Claus. He can't visit hundreds of millions of homes every night. Even if he could he's too fat to go down the chimney with all those cool presents. I understand the deep disappointment that comes with finding out the truth. Children get over it, but unfortunately some of you can't.

 

[water505]

It's argumentum ad populum, which isn't a valid argument. They say that scientists are making this argument, when in fact it's only bloggers and amateurs.

You see, they can totally refute the bloggers and the amateurs. It's the scientists that they aren't able to refute.

Nobody is refuting the beliefs of the alleged 97%. What's been proven is the methods used to arrive at that number are faulty. What evidence do you have they weren't?

 

[water505]

You were done hours ago. I'm sorry you don't like what the evidence shows. Feel free to continue to believe in your magical world.

I know magic is fake. You think math is wrong.

 

[about_average]

Here is the bottom line: the methodology provided by the people who made the 97% claim is faulty. If you believe their methodology was misrepresented by people with an ulterior motive, a normal person interested in the truth would try to find out exactly what their methodology was. Repeatedly asking for evidence to support their methodology was faulty is a clear sign you either haven't read anything about it, you're intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid. It's like asking for proof of simple arithmetic.

Sorry, but there is no Santa Claus. He can't visit hundreds of millions of homes every night. Even if he could he's too fat to go down the chimney with all those cool presents. I understand the deep disappointment that comes with finding out the truth. Children get over it, but unfortunately some of you can't.

Who in this thread has made a claim that "97% of scientists" agree about global warming? Surely you can quote them.

Or are you just arguing with no one because it gives you some sort of perverted satisfaction?

It's either or.

 

[phrodeau]

One thing about being old is I remember a lot of stuff we have been told. In the 70's we were told an ice age was coming. We should prepare and alter everything on the planet.

Now we are here. The whole paradigm has been turned upside down. The scientist that predicted global cooling has now said the science was wrong. He said Now it's global warming proved by science.

Relax.

I have been warned of the 27,000 ways I will die.

Be happy.

Was that ice age prediction accompanied by drastically falling temperatures? I ask because you seem to remember that time.

 

[domroger]

Was that ice age prediction accompanied by drastically falling temperatures? I ask because you seem to remember that time.

As an old fart the answer is no .
In fact the opposite is true ,snowfall is no longer expected because it is not as cold as it used to be in winter .

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's argumentum ad populum, which isn't a valid argument. They say that scientists are making this argument, when in fact it's only bloggers and amateurs.

You see, they can totally refute the bloggers and the amateurs. It's the scientists that they aren't able to refute.

Yes we did. We showed the flaws in their code and their manipulations of data.

It is only the true believer who will not accept facts.

 

[water505]

Yes we did. We showed the flaws in their code and their manipulations of data.

It is only the true believer who will not accept facts.

It's the word of God! He said it and they believe it. Anyone who doesn't is a sinner destined to burn in hell for eternity.

End of discussion.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's the word of God! He said it and they believe it. Anyone who doesn't is a sinner destined to burn in hell for eternity.

End of discussion.

2.5 men...

There's a special spot reserved for you in Hell!

Good. I hate to wait in line...

 

[water505]

2.5 men...

There's a special spot reserved for you in Hell!

Good. I hate to wait in line...

And in that line you'll be stuck between Sgt.Spider and about average pontificating politics...your very own personal hell.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And in that line you'll be stuck between Sgt.Spider and about average pontificating politics...your very own personal hell.

He won't be in my line...



In my line the devil spits on the tines of his pitchfork.

 

[Hard_Rom]

As an old fart the answer is no .
In fact the opposite is true ,snowfall is no longer expected because it is not as cold as it used to be in winter .

Depends on your location. Cold air can't hold as much moisture as warmer air. Technically the Arctic is almost a desert seeing less than 20" of precipitation a year.

Once the Great Lakes freeze over our snowfall amount goes way down.

 

[Hard_Rom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming. Although the increase of near-surface atmospheric temperature is the measure of global warming often reported in the popular press, most of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into the oceans. The rest has melted ice and warmed the continents and atmosphere. Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over tens to thousands of years, and the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times faster than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

Scientific understanding of global warming is increasing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is mostly being caused by human (anthropogenic) activities, mainly increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activities have led to carbon dioxide concentrations above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. Methane and other, often much more potent, greenhouse gases are also rising along with CO2.[ Currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans. Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) for the highest emissions scenario. These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

Future climate change and associated impacts will differ from region to region around the globe. Anticipated effects include warming global temperature, rising sea levels, changing precipitation, and expansion of deserts in the subtropics. Warming is expected to be greater over land than over the oceans and greatest in the Arctic, with the continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely changes include more frequent extreme weather events including heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall with floods and heavy snowfall; ocean acidification; and species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes. Effects significant to humans include the threat to food security from decreasing crop yields and the abandonment of populated areas due to rising sea levels. Because the climate system has a large "inertia" and greenhouse gases will stay in the atmosphere for a long time, many of these effects will not only exist for decades or centuries, but will persist for tens of thousands of years.