Climate continues to change.

[Hal9000_]

If you believe they’re hypocrites, then you must believe in climate change. Either burning fossil fuels matters or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

The deniers also commonly say "Climate changes regularly!".

I ask them how they know this. Of course they won't ever answer.

Or they defer to "it's common knowledge!".

Because they can't accept the fact that their common knowledge is derived from the exact same data sets that show evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Or, of course, they are disingenuous propagandists?

 

[Hal9000_]

If THEY believe in climate change but behave the way they do wrt use of fossil fuels they they are by definition hypocrites, no matter WHAT any of us believe. You should look up what the word means before criticizing someone's use of it.

If they do NOT believe in climate change and behave the way they do then no, they are not hypocrites but rather, deceitful, self important scumbags.

Both of the above assume the individuals are involved in climate change activism as some level. You or I, believing in CC but driving a gas fueled car to work could simply be accepting the inevitable and doing what we must to survive. That's pragmatism, not hypocrisy.

There are also those who have the means to jet set around the world, or drive fuel guzzling 4x4 diesel trucks to their air conditioned office jobs by themselves every day.

The difference is that some advocate progress to new technologies. And by advocate I mean actively donate to the cause. There are alternatives to fossil fuels. And fatalists like you will not stop their eventual implementation.

 

[trysail]

If THEY believe in climate change but behave the way they do wrt use of fossil fuels they they are by definition hypocrites, no matter WHAT any of us believe. You should look up what the word means before criticizing someone's use of it.

If they do NOT believe in climate change and behave the way they do then no, they are not hypocrites but rather, deceitful, self important scumbags.

Both of the above assume the individuals are involved in climate change activism as some level. You or I, believing in CC but driving a gas fueled car to work could simply be accepting the inevitable and doing what we must to survive. That's pragmatism, not hypocrisy.

☝​

★★★★★




It's bloody shocking and amazing that the dimbulbs need someone to explain this to them.

You're a saint for taking the time to do it. I'll be the first to admit that I have neither the patience nor the interest in doing that.




​

 

[thør]

“They took this photo and they looked at it and said, oh, the sea ice is melting in Greenland much faster than it usually is and this is catastrophic,” he said. “No, we have this every year. We have always observed this.”

 

[Dribble]

I wonder what the next sentence was Thor? Why not post that? Lol....

 

[thør]

I wonder what the next sentence was Thor? Why not post that? Lol....

Why not click in the link and find out the whole story? Radio Canada International won't hurt you.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The deniers also commonly say "Climate changes regularly!".

I ask them how they know this. Of course they won't ever answer.

Or they defer to "it's common knowledge!".

Because they can't accept the fact that their common knowledge is derived from the exact same data sets that show evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Or, of course, they are disingenuous propagandists?

Are you serious? ROFL

Not even remotely close.

 

[gunthernehmen]

There are also those who have the means to jet set around the world, or drive fuel guzzling 4x4 diesel trucks to their air conditioned office jobs by themselves every day.

The difference is that some advocate progress to new technologies. And by advocate I mean actively donate to the cause. There are alternatives to fossil fuels. And fatalists like you will not stop their eventual implementation.

I don't have the means to make the slightest difference in developing nuclear power appropriately. But if the CC scammers would stop wasting resources chasing unicorns (solar / wind) perhaps we collectively could make progress.

I've accepted that humanity will probably not do the right thing and frankly even if we did it wouldn't make much difference in the end. I'd be shocked but happy to see nuclear developed as an alternative to fossil fuels.

 

[trysail]

Danish Climate Body Wrongly Reported Greenland Heat Record

Danish climate body [Danish Meteorological Institute or "DMI"] wrongly reported Greenland heat record

"...The DMI last week reported a record temperature of up to 4.7C at the Summit station on Greenland.

Denmark's national climate body has admitted it wrongly reported record warm temperatures on the centre of the Greenland ice sheet last week, in what it called "good news from a climate perspective".

The Danish Meteorological Institute, which has a key role in monitoring Greenland's climate, last week reported a shocking August temperature of between 2.7C and 4.7C at the Summit weather station, which is located 3,202m above sea level at the the centre of the Greenland ice sheet, generating a spate of global headlines.

But on Wednesday it posted a tweet saying that a closer look had shown that monitoring equipment had been giving erroneous results.

"Was there record-level warmth on the inland ice on Friday?" it said. "No! A quality check has confirmed out suspicion that the measurement was too high..."




​

​

 

[phrodeau]

They admit when they’re wrong. How does that fit in your narrative that climate scientists are deliberately skewing the records?

 

[Kantarii]

I’m ready for Autumn weather.

 

[Hal9000_]

Are you serious? ROFL

Not even remotely close.

Are you saying evidence of ACC is derived from different data sets than those that show evidence of past climate change;

or are you asserting that the same data shows no evidence of human interference?

Pretty funny.

I don't have the means to make the slightest difference in developing nuclear power appropriately. But if the CC scammers would stop wasting resources chasing unicorns (solar / wind) perhaps we collectively could make progress.

I've accepted that humanity will probably not do the right thing and frankly even if we did it wouldn't make much difference in the end. I'd be shocked but happy to see nuclear developed as an alternative to fossil fuels.

How will nuclear power help with the transportation sector? The problem is, and always has been energy density. We haven't come up with an efficient (and/or practical) storage solution.

Tidal power could be enough to replace everything else, if we had good storage.

Potential. It's there. I reject your fatal worldview. Humanity has faced worse, and always managed to adapt. Fear of change is irrational.

 

[trysail]

Amicus Curiae Brief

Four Conclusions (p. 1):

1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena

2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows

3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences

4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables, and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain
​

​

The professors are accomplished and well-credentialed scientists. William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics Emeritus at Princeton University. Dr. Happer also has extensive experience advising the government on energy research and policy, having served President George H.W. Bush’s administration as the director of energy research in the Department of Energy.

Steven E. Koonin is the founding director of New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress. Dr. Koonin previously served as the second Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy in President Barack Obama’s administration. In this role, Dr. Koonin oversaw science, energy, and security activities.

Richard S. Lindzen is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Lindzen’s research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its eole in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity

. Each of the professors has been elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, a highly selective non-profit organization recognizing the country’s most distinguished researchers
. Biographies for the professors appear at the end of Exhibit A to this motion.



http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...gn=CO2**C+A+Climate+Surprise&utm_medium=email

​

​

 

[gunthernehmen]

Are you saying evidence of ACC is derived from different data sets than those that show evidence of past climate change;

or are you asserting that the same data shows no evidence of human interference?

Pretty funny.



How will nuclear power help with the transportation sector? The problem is, and always has been energy density. We haven't come up with an efficient (and/or practical) storage solution.

Tidal power could be enough to replace everything else, if we had good storage.

Potential. It's there. I reject your fatal worldview. Humanity has faced worse, and always managed to adapt. Fear of change is irrational.

Evidence of ACC would be such data that support the concept that climate change is primarily driven by human activity.

Evidence of CC would be such data that support the concept that climate changes.

How could the data sets possibly be the same?

As for tidal power generation, haven't we devastated the environment enough? Seriously. What do you have against the Earth? I mean that. You have no idea the impact that would have. Lunacy.

 

[jaF0]

Climate by the numbers
July 2019

The average global temperature in July was 1.71 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, making it the hottest July in the 140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. The previous hottest month on record was July 2016.

Record-low sea ice: Average Arctic sea ice set a record low for July, running 19.8% below average – surpassing the previous historic low of July 2012.

Average Antarctic sea-ice coverage was 4.3% below the 1981-2010 average, making it the smallest for July in the 41-year record.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-was-hottest-month-on-record-for-planet

 

[trysail]

Watch and learn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFPRMV2p5cY&feature=youtu.be


​

 

[Hal9000_]

Evidence of ACC would be such data that support the concept that climate change is primarily driven by human activity.

Evidence of CC would be such data that support the concept that climate changes.

How could the data sets possibly be the same?

As for tidal power generation, haven't we devastated the environment enough? Seriously. What do you have against the Earth? I mean that. You have no idea the impact that would have. Lunacy.

The data comes from the same sources. Ice cores, fossil records, isotopes, etc. You reject one conclusion while embracing the other. Illogical.

You also ignored my questions about nuclear power.

How would tidal power generating stations impact the environment? More than nuclear power plants?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Climate change or just crazy weather? How improving tools make it easier to tell.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ttribution-hurricanes-droughts-climate-model/

But thanks to better climate models, swelling libraries of earlier analyses, and our improving understanding of these systems, researchers can now often say with virtual certainty that climate change made a particular event more likely or more severe.

 

[lustatopia]

Here's the true dope on the Anthropogenic Warming hypothesis made simple so even you fuckers can understand it. Not that it will change any minds because by now we are talking about faith-based beliefs here. The Deniers are the Heretics and the Warmists are the evangelical Christians who preach fire and brimstone for sinners. The prophets - like billionaire St. Gore - say the Second Coming is only 12 years off. (It's been 12 years off since 1988.) So repent now mutherfuckers or burn in a carbon-based Hell forever.

The real science dope, that even the IPCC certifies, goes like this:

Every time atmospheric CO2 doubles, the Earth's average temperature rises by 1c. The Earth's atmospheric CO2 is now at about 405 parts per million (ppm) and rising at about 2ppm a year. Thus, it will take ~198 fucking years for the Earth's temp to rise 1c. Got that?

Not so fast. No one is arguing about the warming effect of CO2! It's well understood by both the Heretics and the Evangelical Warmists. The real argument among the annointed priesthood in the academies is about how "sensitive" the climate is to the little bit of warming caused by CO2.

You see, if the atmosphere warms even a little bit that causes the oceans to heat up and increase evaporation, making the Earth's atmosphere more humid. H2O is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, it's the humidity in the atmosphere that is primarily responsible for the Earth not being a frozen snowball, NOT CO2. You can be forgiven for never hearing about this fact thanks to the illiteracy our peasant media.

So the high priesthood at the IPCC and Hadley, et al, claim that the climate's sensitivity to a 1c increase in temperature is x3. Thus, a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will actually increase the Earth's temperature by 3c by 2200. That's the fucking Gospel according the IPCC and the sacred computer models. All bow before the sacred computer models and repent!

But the Heretics had a look at these sacred models and noticed, hang on, these fucking holy models don't do clouds! Yup, that's right. In spite of our deep and abiding faith in computer models they just do not know how to model clouds from "First Principles" nor do they have the terraflops to pull it off even if they did totally grok cloud formation and distribution.

The high priests at the IPCC just kind of throw in cotton candy animated clouds into their models tweaked to produce results that more or less agree with the x3 climate sensitivity targets they need to make global warming an issue.

Those damn Heretics have some demonic ideas about clouds. They reckon that if the planet warms a bit and this causes more evaporation from the oceans this will cause more clouds and more clouds will cool the fucking climate a bit, even if the higher humidity holds more heat in, thus the climate's sensitivity to warming might be as low as x1.7 or x1.2, NOT x3.

The Evangelical true believers will have none of this heresy because it means there is nothing to worry about.

The Earth is just like James Lovelock calculated way back in the 1970's. The biosphere is like a living organism in the sense that it is a jumble of negative feedback systems that tend to regulate temperature, humidity, etc. at steady states around "strange attractors." The Earth is a non-linear complex system. There is no way the biosphere allows runaway feedback loops to persist or we would have already have expired millions of years ago.

The Warmist Evangelicals can not have an Earth that takes care of its own climate pretty much regardless of whatever itsy bitsy tiny little bug people are doing with fossil fuels, otherwise their whole church is rendered meaningless. The Warmists are Pre-Copernican in their world view. The whole planet must rotate around the United Nations. They even renamed the Holocene, our current geological era as the Anthropocene, because we - well actually, just the elites - are God.

The Warmists are really post-Christians evangelicals who have appropriated and secularized the ancient concepts of sin and guilt for new ends. "Repent Now", pay your tithe and "The End is Near" are the memetics required to instill fear, inspire faith and enforce obedience in the peasantry now, just as they have been used for millennia - keep the peasants illiterate, frightened and barefoot in the field yoked to a cubicle and their Google account.

 

[Conager]

I have often pointed out that Frodo's religion is buncombe.

There seems to be something endemic to the human psyche that requires a faith in something that is not you. I don't know that that's entirely unhealthy. But why is it that the same people that tend to be religious tend to be climate heretics and vice versa?

Why do they irreligious tend to be fans of astrology and space aliens?

 

[Hal9000_]

I have often pointed out

The data comes from the same sources.

Your interpretation is bunk.

 

[Conager]

The Frodoesque useful idiots in the religion serve the same function, and are the same people, as the useful.idiots in the movement to embrace the failed economic model that is socialism.

They both endlessly re-label themselves each time their ideas fall into disrepute.

Recently, the "Green New Deal" socialists have admited that the point of the exercise has little to do with environmental concerns about an over-the-horizon downside scheduled at some nebulous, future date, but about the immediate opportunity to harness the religion of climate change nee global warming to effect change that will benefit their redistributionist, social justice aims.

Cui bono?

It has always been about measuring the economic output of various countries and regions (which energy consumption is a very good analog for) and penalizing successful regimes in order to prop up the less successful. The people pushing these carbon-based metrics all have a vested interest. Either money, power or both. If we had enacted a stupid carbon tax scheme, Al Gore, who already has become as wealthy as Joel Osteen, using the same techniques, would have been astonishingly rich as a founder of a scheme for carbon credit exchange. Taxing and distributing the proceeds of that tax is a yuuuge opportunity for corruption, cronyism, and wielding power.

 

[lustatopia]

I have often pointed out that Frodo's religion is buncombe.

There seems to be something endemic to the human psyche that requires a faith in something that is not you. I don't know that that's entirely unhealthy. But why is it that the same people that tend to be religious tend to be climate heretics and vice versa?

Why do they irreligious tend to be fans of astrology and space aliens?

It's probably because most people don't know shit all about epistemology. Fuck, most people don't even know what the word means.

Fact is that most "ways of knowing" are faith-based. People think if they don't believe in a "religion" that they aren't religious. Not necessarily so. Marxism is a kind of secular faith-based world-view. So is Warmist Evangelical Millenarianism.

It just feels so good to be a self-righteous little twit, who while being a failure at most things, is at least assured in their own moral superiority over the vast writhing pit of human wastrels that by their lack of faith prove one's self-worth. It's sick, I know. But there isn't an evangelical on the planet of any faith for whom this is not one of the subconscious motives for their being. I suspect that in truly old-time religious traditions this evangelical morbidity is tempered by real empathy, love and compassion, but not so in modern secular faiths like Marxism or Warmist Millenarianism where hatred of the 'other' whether the bourgeois oppressor or Denialist is de rigueur in order to dehumanizing non-believers so that they can be shamelessly purged.

Naturally, in our modern sciencey world its hard to get that moral self-righteous thrill out of ancient sky gods with their books written by and largely for desert nomads. And since most people have no clue what the method of science really is about - all they know is that it is always true, like a revelation handed down by Moses - then they will faithfully believe in Science. Yeh, see the miracles of science all around thee, ye who would doubt! "The science is settled!" The consensus of the high priesthood of scientific prophets has spoken.

It's the same fucking manipulative tools as always, dressed up as hipster post-modernists, truthy, sciencey - spoken in a Carl Sagan voiceover. People are easy to manipulate if they believe an expert class or priesthood know the TRUTH. Do not dare question their Faith or you risk being burned at the proverbial stake.

It's like Biden said: We believe in the TRUTH not the FACTS!

Of course, real science knows no Truth, just useful hypotheses. No faith, just skepticism. Not even gravity is a truth, just a theory, and one that was rewritten quite recently. Every hypothesis is up for constant review.

That's how you can tell Warmist Millenarianism is not science. Because the warmists have designed their "hypothesis" to be unfalsifiable. When the Arctic ice cap fails to melt by the forecast date of 2007, they simply won't be denied their faith. They just slip that detail down the memory hole. Now the ice cap will be gone by 2030, unless of course, we all submit to their self-righteous moral authority. Then we will be Saved. Hallelujah!

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

 

[jaF0]

Interesting exchange here that seems to have resulted in the recusal or removal of a Senior Appeals Court Judge on the basis of bias in a case about the EPA and emissions rules.

Too convoluted to quote sections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1155b4-ba17-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

Basically the Judge exhibited a personal position on climate change in emails to other Judges and is being looked at for decorum and ethics issues.

 

[phrodeau]

“Fact is that most "ways of knowing" are faith-based.” Made me laugh.

Lustatopia, you seem to be personally conflicted. You accept that CO2 drives climate change, that CO2 is increasing through human activity, and that climate change is occurring. Yet you describe those who agree with you as if they were loonies.