Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Peregrinator]

Thirteen years— no warming:


http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1998/normalise


​

Where? What data set? Why post a graph that tells the reader nothing at all?

 

[Peregrinator]

Who is paying the weight of the sheer number of people working ON the theory?

Is there an equal amount of funding available to anyone with a differing opinion?

Convince me that this is just not another Solyndra case where government picks winners and losers based upon the power that can be procured with the pick, in this case, the power to return us to a more primitive communal state of perceived idyllic existence and one with nature sacrificing the occasional baby to the wolf to keep life "in balance."

Since this subject has been so thoroughly researched perhaps you can give us the desired temperature and the exact amounts of CO2 required to achieve it...

The amount of scrutiny in salt does not affect how we react to the alarmist pronouncements of "EXPERTISE."

You don't question the expert, you don't have the tools, yada, yada, yada...

I love the suggestion that there's no money in the skeptic side. How do the skeptics make a living?

One example:

$55.2 million: amount Koch family foundations have given to organizations questioning the science of climate change since 1997

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/4-Charles-and-David-Koch.html

No one can prove a negative. Especially it's impossible to prove a tinfoil-hat conspiracy like the one you propose. If you expect anyone to take such an idea seriously, you might try providing an example of someone advocating a return "to a more primitive communal state of perceived idyllic existence and one with nature sacrificing the occasional baby to the wolf to keep life "in balance.""

That's not the point at all. Climate science isn't seeking an answer to the question "What is the optimum global average temperature?"

Well, it should. One person publishing one study bears scrutiny and a wait for, at the very least, another researcher to duplicate the results after the peer review process has vetted them.

How seriously do you take the opinion of someone who's never been in a fight when they tell you how best to perform a roundhouse kick?

 

[Ishmael]

I have no idea if your post was in response to mine Perg. but you didn't address my statements in the least.

The article, obviously written by a layman with an agenda, basically states that the skeptics are saying what they most certainly aren't saying.

The particular argument that the recent report is allegedly addressing is a debate over certain 'tuning' constants that were used in the statistical reduction of the data. It's a debate that goes into the minutia of the data. No one was expecting some profound difference in the results, so the argument is over scientific methodologies.

Further the most recent report doesn't change anything, other than it gives idiots with agendas an opportunity to blat with erroneous headlines based on erroneous assumptions. The fact that the recent report is 'similar' to the data reported by the other sources should come as no surprise to anyone, after all they are allegedly all working from the same raw data sets. Also, 'similar' is not 'identical', so the question is, 'where and how does the new report differ from those previously released. Does it move the line closer to the data points argued by those that have taken issue with the statistical methodologies? And if it does, then wouldn't this report also vindicate them as well?

On top of that, once the Berkley group publishes their complete analysis it too will have to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Just because a group bills itself as 'independent', well, that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I see that Trysail posted the ARGOS patterns. That data contradicts all of the AGW hypothesis. There are other data sets out there that paint an entirely different picture, and quite frankly a more rational picture than that of the alarmists.

For example;

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif

These are the Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures are as reported by a constellation of NASA satellites over the years. These satellites measure the natural microwave thermal emissions of atmospheric Oxygen. As can be seen, a relatively sinusoidal pattern is emerging and we're moving into the down slope.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

I ask because that's exactly what the "Intelligent Design" crew says...

And that's where they stop telling the truth.

 

[Peregrinator]

There are still so-called skeptics who say there's no warming. That was the point.

Satellite data:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

 

[thør]

I
On top of that, once the Berkley group publishes their complete analysis it too will have to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

They haven't got their papers back from peer review, yet.

 

[cjh]

The Earth is the center of the Universe.

 

[Loring2]

The Earth is the center of the Universe.

Very good ... and your real name is ...? ; are we in the age of Copernicus? Who is Galileo?

 

[thør]

The Earth is the center of the Universe.

It's certainly the center of most people's universe.......

 

[Peregrinator]

It's certainly the center of most people's universe.......

Only inasmuch as it happens to be the planet their colossal egos are standing on at the time.

 

[thør]

Only inasmuch as it happens to be the planet their colossal egos are standing on at the time.

Be fair. The majority of the world doesn't give a damn what happens outside the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[Peregrinator]

Be fair. The majority of the world doesn't give a damn what happens outside the Earth's atmosphere.

...doesn't give a damn what happens outside their own neighborhood.

 

[thør]

...doesn't give a damn what happens outside their own neighborhood.

pretty much.

 

[richard_daily]

You're doing it again.

According to your logic we can't believe any science at all.

And yet, he's absolutely, 100%, totally positive, that there isn't any man-made climate change going on...

 

[KingOrfeo]

And yet, he's absolutely, 100%, totally positive, that there isn't any man-made climate change going on...

Well, that's consistent at least; if we exclude science, what's left, what is there, but a priori reasoning? Well, that plus weed, beer and sex, but you know what I mean.

 

[Spacefender]

A) the moon isn't a planet
B) the moon lacks an atmosphere.

Planetary bodies with atmospheres have had a rise in temperature.

The issue isn't that the data shows the Earth warming, this issue is that human activity is the PRIMARY cause.

Hell, my point wasn't even talking about the PRIMARY cause so much as questioning whether it's the ONLY cause. But you're not allowed to have those questions or else you're just a flat-Earth bozo. So fuck it.

You know what's really hilarious about these fucking threads? Let's just say that all warming is indeed man-made. So fucking what? Green house gas emissions aren't going to go down anytime soon. Here, let me sum up this thread in one sentence:

Global warming is man-made and the planet is fucked.

 

[Ishmael]

They haven't got their papers back from peer review, yet.

I noticed.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I love the suggestion that there's no money in the skeptic side. How do the skeptics make a living?

One example:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/4-Charles-and-David-Koch.html

No one can prove a negative. Especially it's impossible to prove a tinfoil-hat conspiracy like the one you propose. If you expect anyone to take such an idea seriously, you might try providing an example of someone advocating a return "to a more primitive communal state of perceived idyllic existence and one with nature sacrificing the occasional baby to the wolf to keep life "in balance.""

That's not the point at all. Climate science isn't seeking an answer to the question "What is the optimum global average temperature?"

Well, it should. One person publishing one study bears scrutiny and a wait for, at the very least, another researcher to duplicate the results after the peer review process has vetted them.

How seriously do you take the opinion of someone who's never been in a fight when they tell you how best to perform a roundhouse kick?

*chuckle*

Money perverts them, but it does not pervert us!

lol

A_J's corollary #6, “The New Age Liberal thinks, ‘When I do/say it, it is right because of my open-minded education and intelligence. When you do/say it, it serves to demonstrate how narrow-minded, poorly educated and stupid you are.’”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...doesn't give a damn what happens outside their own neighborhood.

Another slander of the with us or against us mentality...

You keep going back to the martyr-like position of those who don't believe hate Science, hate the environment, want dirty air for profit, yada, yada, yada...,

This is why it is hard to take you seriously much like years of listening to Ron Paul foll..., er, uh DOCTOR Pauls' followers have made him into a joke when he runs for President when I see him at the debates.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"That's not the point at all. Climate science isn't seeking an answer to the question "What is the optimum global average temperature?"

Well, it should. One person publishing one study bears scrutiny and a wait for, at the very least, another researcher to duplicate the results after the peer review process has vetted them."

The peer-researched has reached only ONE verifiable conclusion, that there has been a slight warming in this current climate cycle. None of them firmly establish a cause.

It's like looking at heart illness and establishing salt as the common denominator because sales are up.

My buddy, the heart surgeon, says it's grain and processed foods...

But up until this year, he was a "skeptic."



Non-consensus.

Idiot...

 

[Ishmael]

*chuckle*

Money perverts them, but it does not pervert us!

lol

A_J's corollary #6, “The New Age Liberal thinks, ‘When I do/say it, it is right because of my open-minded education and intelligence. When you do/say it, it serves to demonstrate how narrow-minded, poorly educated and stupid you are.’”

Actually I'm getting a kick out of the way they are trying to frame the debate. It harkens back to my "new priesthood" thread. "Deniars", "Skeptics", why not throw "Agnostic" in as well, or maybe "Apostate." Those are all terms that at one time or another have been used to blaspheme those that did not follow the religious dogma of the hurler of the terms. So even their choice of words fits the pattern of the followers of such new age religions.

And what is being denied here anyway, climate change? No. That there's such a thing as climate science? Again the answer is no. What is being argued is simply whether man is the prime mover of the environment or not. One side says yes, the other no. The proponents of the AGW side have been unable to show any evidence, beyond casual relationships any evidence to support their claim, and as a matter of fact they have unwittingly uncovered evidence that thoroughly undermines their claims.

In their attempt to gain power over the rest of us, and it is a power grab, make no mistake on that, they couch the notion of global warming in terms such as 'catastrophic.' Really? If anything history indicates that warming would lead to an even more verdant planet than currently exists. They can't quite wrap their head around the notion that cooling is the enemy of life on this hunk of rock we're stuck on for the time being.

I wish that we knew of an earth like planet relatively close by. I would be all for developing a means to transport all of these wannabe Terra-reformers to that planet and letting them do their thing. Of course once they were there they'd have to do that Terra-reforming with the resources available to them, meaning they would no longer be parasites feeding themselves by taking bread from the table of others. Under those circumstances I wonder how many would really want to make the trip?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What?

You're thinking they're not smart enough to transform Mars?

How dare you slander the brightest minds on the planet?



A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...,
John P. Holdren
White House Office of Science and Technology Director

You must be suicidal what with your greedy love of dirty air and water...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Government "Science" at work...

...

As I have pointed out in other articles on this subject, the Corps holds back water each spring in order to mimic the natural flood and ebb cycles of the pre-dam river as part of a larger effort to benefit threatened and endangered species. The concept of "eco-system restoration" has gained supremacy over flood control. The biologists of the Corps have spent millions and millions of dollars and man-hours attempting to manage the river as if the six mainstem dams did not exist. As we learn more and more about what the Corps knew, and how soon they knew it, it is evident that the narrative promoted by the Corps is demonstrably false.

Farhat stated in an interview with the Omaha World Herald that the Montana rains amounted to between 4 and 5 million acre-feet of additional runoff. At a flow rate of 160,000 cubic feet per second, 5 million acre-feet would pass through the dam system in about three and a half days, and through the entire river system in about twenty days. The release rate at Gavin's Point dam (the last dam in the chain) has been at 160,000 cubic feet per second for more than three months. This fact alone puts the lie to the Corps's entire "official" story.

While it is true that some measure of flooding was certain to occur due to the dramatically higher SWEs and later rainfall events, it is equally certain that the severity of this flood could have been largely mitigated by responsible action taken earlier on the part of the Corps of Engineers.

Knowing that the Corps possessed the same data as Brad Lawrence, realizing that the Corps had received multiple warnings from reliable and knowledgeable sources, and understanding that they flatly refused to act upon this information in a timely fashion raises the question: was this incompetence or specific intent? Could the green-enamored restoration crowd in the Corps have seen the opportunity to "restore the natural function of the river in a one year event," as said by Greg Pavelka, a high-level wildlife biologist with the Corps in an interview with the Seattle Times?

These questions deserve a transparent and immediate response. Mainstream media outlets have thus far failed to pick up the story, so it is my hope that the congressional investigations into the conduct of the Corps gets to the bottom of this quickly. We are approaching winter, and already the snowpack is building toward next year's runoff season. Changes must be forced and decision-makers held to account. The residents of the Missouri River valley cannot withstand a repeat of 2011.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/the_corps_of_engineers_doubles_down_on_flood_folly.html

 

[rosco rathbone]

I feel for those poor folks living near the river, at the mercy of a bunch of government eggheads with degrees from third rate schools.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Aren't the Corps Engineers trained at West Point?



:shrugs: