[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 12:11 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 10:00 AM)Redcloud Wrote:  

Global warming is a non-partisan issue that affects all humans, why pretend otherwise?

Yeah, seriously. Do you have an argument or just cute memes?

[PapayaTapper]

(07-05-2018 12:27 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:11 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 10:00 AM)Redcloud Wrote:  

Global warming is a non-partisan issue that affects all humans, why pretend otherwise?

Yeah, seriously. Do you have an argument or just cute memes?

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 12:33 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Redcloud bub came out of the college brainwashing gulag thinking that he has imbued all the world's wisdom:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

Enjoy that - and rejecting claims made by serious geologists and even climatologists in the links I shared as "crackpot" is not the way to go forward.

The reality is that CO2 is too low already. We should quadruple it and even that would be too low. You will be freezing your ass off in the next decades anyway as the sun (the main driver of past warm and cold periods in Earth history) has begun a downward cycle since 2016 that is likely to span the next decades. CO2 is not the issue, but since debating you is useless since you are not going to take a look at the counter-arguments, then memes will serve us more.

There are even countless quotes by politicians and globalist planners of how the global warming scam even if utterly untrue is great in order to redistribute wealth and lower population growth.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/17/d...l-cooling/

Quote:

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes,“was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”

Quote:

Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

But yes - you will certainly explain it all away by one of the current 52 excuses of why there is no global warming (despite sticking to that term until recently):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/list-of-excu...l-warming/

This ain't bible class where you can change heaven, hell and purgatory by an edict of the pope - literally altering something eternal with one edict.

Science is about facts and there are no facts on your side - only memes:

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 01:14 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Redcloud bub came out of the college brainwashing gulag thinking that he has imbued all the world's wisdom:

And it sounds like you came from the internet school of contrarians so desperate to be different that you'll make up all kinds of nonsense to show how "elevated" your world view is above everyone else's.

I mean, your only source thus far is a website designed in 2002 that has lightning bolts as a header image, and is written by an unemployed TV weatherman:



Beyond that, I'd love to see you make an argument that doesn't involve using the word "globalists," who, according to you, are also controlling the referees of world cup soccer games in their spare time.

[Kona]

(07-05-2018 12:24 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:19 AM)heavy Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 05:18 AM)Kona Wrote:  

I'm still waiting for that acid rain. When I was a kid (((they))) said that shit was gonna pour death from the sky all over me.

Thanks for reminding me...totally forgot about that. Acid rain, over-population, global warming (now global climate change), cutting 6-pack plastic rings (which I still do to this day). I wish I remembered all the ridiculous things schools taught us.

I'll add another: Mandatory recycling (in particular plastic, electronic waste, and paper). The majority of the 'recycling' collected in the USA, Europe, and Australia went to Asia (about 60% to China). The handling and processing of the scrap turned into an environment disaster.

China basically banned scrap imports in January. Vietnam, India, and Thailand are restricting / banning waste imports as well. In Thailand, there are 400 containers of E-waste that is now coming back.

Plastic and paper is now being land-filled or is piling up in storage.

It was acid rain when I was in elementary school. Recycling and global warming came a little later.

And how about those starving Ethiopians? Did Quincy Jones and we are the world crew get them their 50 cents a day?

Aloha!

[PapayaTapper]

non-consensus = partisanship

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...emissions/

https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/201...cepted.pdf

https://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georg...dith-curry

Quote:

CurryWikimediaCommons
Wikimedia Commons
Climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry has announced her resignation effective immediately on her blog, Climate, Etc. I have long found Curry to be an honest researcher and a fair-minded disputant in the ongoing debates over man-made climate change. She excelled at pointing out the uncertainties and deficiencies of climate modeling. Given the thoroughly politicized nature of climate science her efforts to clarify what is known and unknown by climate science caused her to be pilloried as "anti-science" by other researchers who are convinced that man-made global warming is leading toward catastrophe. In her blog annoucement Curry explains her resignation:

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

Let me relate an interaction that I had with a postdoc about a month ago. She wanted to meet me, as an avid reader of my blog. She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn't identify as a climate scientist. She says she gets questioned all the time about global warming issues, and doesn't know what to say, since topics like attribution, etc. are not topics that she explores as a scientist. WOW, a scientist that knows the difference! I advised her to keep her head down and keep doing the research that she thinks interesting and important, and to stay out of the climate debate UNLESS she decides to dig in and pursue it intellectually. Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that – personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke."

Curry adds that with her resignation her "fall from the ivory tower that started in 2005 is now complete." Curry continues, "At this point, the private sector seems like a more 'honest' place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss."

The good news is that Curry is not bowing out climate research and the climate change debate; she plans to continue and increase her blogging on climate research and climate policy. As she notes, "Once you detach from the academic mindset, publishing on the internet makes much more sense, and the peer review you can get on a technical blog is much more extensive. But peer review is not really the point; provoking people to think in new ways about something is really the point. In other words, science as process, rather than a collection of decreed 'truths.'"

I advise everyone concerned about climate change research to attend to her blog. I certainly will continue to do so.

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 01:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

non-consensus = partisanship

There is actually an overwhelming consensus: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(07-05-2018 01:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/201...cepted.pdf

Did you actually read all 37 pages of this before posting? It's borderline incomprehensible. Can you break down their findings in regards to ECS and TCR and ocean forcing?

[mikado]

(07-05-2018 09:02 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:48 AM)mikado Wrote:  

I hate watermelon

I'm taking your black man card.

Seriously, never understood the appeal from black people for that!

On the other hand, I am the guy who thinks bacon tastes awful, and finds vodka is best when you take it pure (in a glass, not though shots), so... Not the most objective person!

[PapayaTapper]

(07-05-2018 02:07 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 01:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

non-consensus = partisanship

There is actually an overwhelming consensus: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(07-05-2018 01:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/201...cepted.pdf

Did you actually read all 37 pages of this before posting? It's borderline incomprehensible. Can you break down their findings in regards to ECS and TCR and ocean forcing?

Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?

Did you read Judith Curry article?

Quote:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

Are you a climate scientist?

No?



You came to the wrong place to set up a Kool Aid stand

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Here bub - some quotes with citations on the site and what the real movers and shakers think about it:

http://green-agenda.com/

Biggest con since the "sun-will-not-rise-unless-we-rip-someone's-heart-out" con:

Quote:

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports



“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation



“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

etc etc.

I am old enough and went to a good-enough school to be told about the medieval and Roman warming periods - when red wine was cultivated in Britain and Greenland was warm enough to support normal agriculture. I can also still remember the stories told in Europe about the little ice age and sometimes houses being built on the ocean between Scandinavia and Poland.

http://green-agenda.com/science.html

Quote:

However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

In addition there is the little nasty CO2 gap of 800 years between temperature rises in Earth history and then CO2 FOLLOWING THE TEMPERATURE RISES. It was never the other way around and it happened with a fucking lag of 800 years on top of that.

Bub - sit down - and go and study more the other side, or not - then go and scream with the Antifa crowd next time Lord Christopher Monckton comes in town to Redpill some more people.

Quote:

This raises another issue with the 'man-made' theory of global warming. Almost all ice core records show that carbon dioxide levels begin to rise approximately 800 years after temperature begins to rise. This is why Al Gore didn't superimpose his CO2/temp graphs in his 'documentary'. Even the mega-alarmists at the RealClimate site admit this:

“At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations... The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.“ - link

So, according to them 'something else' (maybe the sun!) caused temperatures to rise and 800 years later CO2 levels rose and 'could have caused the rest of the warming'. Hmm ... so why could the 'thing' that caused the initial warming not have also caused the rest? Seems more likely. This 800 year lag can be explained by a phenomenon known as Deep Ocean Thermal Inertia. Only the top 70m of the ocean is mixed by wave and wind action, the rest of the up to 10,000 meters of ocean experiences relatively little water exchange. When the surface of the ocean is warmed the heat is absorbed and very slowly travels down through the water column. You can actually measure temperature strata somewhat analagous to tree rings. Scientists refer to this as 'oceanic memory'.

[ed pluribus unum]

I'd like to see those fuckin' global warming hippies re-schedule their electricity-boycotting "earth hour" for mid-July. Anyone can turn off the A/C in late April for an hour.

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 02:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?

Did you read Judith Curry article?

You didn't answer my question, so I'm guessing you just posted that PDF to look smart.

The Judith article is simply stating that she was frustrated with how the industry works, which is understandable.

I've read a lot of her work; she's bearish on the "warming" aspects of climate change but believes it is still happening, albeit at a perhaps slower rate than the majority of other scientists in the field have shown.

She certainly doesn't deny climate change, and if anything, offers up some interesting and more robust policy ideas that are level-headed and non-partisan in regards to how to address the issue.

Were you trying to use her one-time frustration to dismiss the work of thousands of scientists (including her) that have reached consensus on climate change?

(07-05-2018 02:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?

Yes, I understand it. Like anything, there is going to be bias introduced. But it's curious that the majority of scientists across the majority of developed nations have all reached a consensus on climate change.

Are you suggesting that because of the natural bias in scientific funding that therefore no scientists can be trusted on any matter of importance?

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 02:37 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Here bub - some quotes with citations on the site and what the real movers and shakers think about it:

http://green-agenda.com/

Again, your "sources" are incredibly questionable if not ridiculous. Quoting a bunch of people spewing spooky lines out of context doesn't prove anything, nor is it a rebuttal, nor is it the basis of a legitimate argument.

Humans create 76,000,000,000,000 pounds of C02 emissions each year.

Politics aside, you really don't think that has any affect on the earth?

Why is it such a hard pill to swallow that actions have reactions, and that pumping trillions of tons of shit into the air each year is more than likely not so good for our planet? You seen a picture of Beijing lately?

If not now, at what point does it become an issue? 500 trillion? 1 quadrillion? Or do you believe that nothing humans do will ever have an effect on the planet?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I think that you farting "has effect" on the earth - just about as much as a fart in the wind. I also think that humans putting out CO2 is a wonderful thing that will create a better climate for plants and for all of us. Unfortunately our influence is ridiculously low.

I seriously doubt however if even 1 degree change will be directly created by humans themselves. At best we can raise CO2 levels a bit - which by the way are just 50% away from death of all plant life. Again - you are simply making it easy for yourself being indoctrinated in the usual scientism cult of modern academia. The scientism cult tells you now that genders are fluid and you can do a gender reassignment surgery on a random 3yo boy or girl and get the opposite sex out of it.

You are clearly not adding 1+1 together, you are ignoring the real arguments of the dissenters. You are even ignoring the medieval and Roman warming periods - probably caused by the Roman sandal-production eh?

And in the next decades as the natural cooling takes place (as predicted by solar-activity studying scientists a few years ago) you will either look like a fool or pay 40% of your income on climate taxes in order to save the earth while freezing away in your shack - enjoying your Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) public transport. Meanwhile earth will keep on cooling because minor variations of sun activity have massive repercussions for all planets in this solar system. The mere fact that the sun was left out of all global warming models is proof of this insanity. I used to be a big believer in mainstream science, believed in Global Warming long before it became fashionable in the mainstream. But to my credit - I have an open mind able to look at both sides and then decide which is more credible, logical and scientific - and which is a crackpot theory of global minions designed for more control and money for nothing.

It's more a religion than science.

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 03:22 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

I also think that humans putting out CO2 is a wonderful thing that will create a better climate for plants and for all of us. Unfortunately our influence is ridiculously low.

If you think pollution is "wonderful" then you quite clearly have a warped view of what makes for a healthy human life.

You've yet to produce a single fact-based argument, or provide any evidence for any of your outlandish claims. You're throwing in strawman arguments left and right and are rambling about "facts" you read on an anonymously written opinion blog. You clearly get some sort of pleasure out of being a contrarian.

You can continue to keep your head in the sand - that's your right - but you don't have to look far to see the evidence.

Are these environments in which you'd choose to raise your children?

Mexico City:


Shanghai:


Delhi:

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Buddy - you are so brainwashed that you mistake CO2 with pollution. Of course there is pollution and those cities must do something about it just like Western cities had done. Tokyo has turned things around and many other cities can if there is will.

BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2! Nothing whatsoever!

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 04:10 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Buddy - you are so brainwashed that you mistake CO2 with pollution. Of course there is pollution and those cities must do something about it just like Western cities had done. Tokyo has turned things around and many other cities can if there is will.

BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2! Nothing whatsoever!

Why are you shouting?

90%+ of smog/air pollution/C02 emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels.

Or are you now arguing against the fundamental principles of physics and chemistry too?

[PapayaTapper]

Welcome back MMX2010

(07-05-2018 02:53 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 02:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?

Did you read Judith Curry article?

(07-05-2018 02:53 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

The Judith article is simply stating that she was frustrated with how the industry works, which is understandable.

No...she clearly states that she's frustrated with the obvious bias driving the "industry's" (your word) agenda. When science becomes politicized it ceases to be science and worthy of skepticism.

(07-05-2018 02:53 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

I've read a lot of her work; she's bearish on the "warming" aspects of climate change but believes it is still happening, albeit at a perhaps slower rate than the majority of other scientists in the field have shown.

So how exactly how much scientific disagreement is required in your view before you acknowledge that the "consensus" isn't absolute? (Hint: that's a rhetorical question)

(07-05-2018 02:53 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

She certainly doesn't deny climate change, and if anything, offers up some interesting and more robust policy ideas that are level-headed and non-partisan in regards to how to address the issue.

See definition of consensus

(07-05-2018 02:53 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

Were you trying to use her one-time frustration to dismiss the work of thousands of scientists (including her) that have reached consensus on climate change?

Youre misrepresenting her words. There's nothing to indicate that her resignation was due to a "one time frustration". She was fed up with the whole politicization of the field

(07-05-2018 02:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?

Yes, I understand it. Like anything, there is going to be bias introduced. But it's curious that the majority of scientists across the majority of developed nations have all reached a consensus on climate change.

Are you suggesting that because of the natural bias in scientific funding that therefore no scientists can be trusted on any matter of importance?

Im suggesting that the bias totally de-legitimatizes the idea of scientific consensus, by definition and again, worthy of skepticism

(07-05-2018 02:53 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

You didn't answer my question, so I'm guessing you just posted that PDF to look smart.

Yes I read it. If you failed to understand that the two researchers systematically deconstructed the assumed and accepted positions in the field, ultimately concluding that "generally accepted" research models and data imposition protocols are flawed then Im going back to using memes and gifs

If youre not a climate scientist then you dont "know" anything but rather have chosen to "believe" what the agenda driven MSM and climate industry are feeding you.

Quote:

Definition of proselytize
proselytized; proselytizing
intransitive verb
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith

Like I said

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 06:19 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Welcome back MMX2010

So you’re not even going to attempt to defend your arguments? Just straight to the false accusations?

[Redcloud]

(07-05-2018 06:19 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Yes I read it. If you failed to understand that the two researchers systematically deconstructed the assumed and accepted positions in the field, ultimately concluding that "generally accepted" research models and data imposition protocols are flawed then Im going back to using memes and gifs

If youre not a climate scientist then you dont "know" anything but rather have chosen to "believe" what the agenda driven MSM and climate industry are feeding you.

Nice last minute edit! Glad you decided to be a man and form some rational thoughts instead of speaking through memes and accusations.

RE: the PDF. It was about ocean temperatures, and you still didn't answer my question about it. So not sure you understood it either. Whatever.

You also get a +1 for having stronger strawman arguments than Simeon, but they're still ridiculous.

Someone has to be a "climate scientist" to hold a valid and informed opinion on the subject of climate change? How juvenile. Do I also need a degree in nutrition to eat healthy, or be a doctor to know that smoking is linked to cancer? What an absurd statement.

Anyway, neither of you have provided a single ounce of evidence that you've been able to back up, just strawman arguments, conjecture, and a heavy dose of condescension.

If you want to post some memes about kool-aid to feel better about yourself, and in lieu of any real counter-argument, then go ahead and knock yourself out.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Keep this bullshit out of the beautiful heat wave thread. If you want to pontificate about "climate change" and "teh science", there are plenty of other places to do that, including here. This is an actual human thread for guys who just want to shoot the shit about how they deal with heat waves, and it should not have all life sucked out of it by thin ideological verbiage.

[TravelerKai]

(07-05-2018 06:36 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 06:19 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Welcome back MMX2010

So you’re not even going to attempt to defend your arguments? Just straight to the false accusations?

That did not take long now did it?

[scotian]

I only worked one shift this week because it was too hot, the refinery safety dorks took out this wet bulb thermometer thing and it was 43C (110F) at my work location so they shut us down. I'm off until Monday evening, now we have to work 6pm until 4am, what a shitty shift, I'm going back to Toronto to drink beer again.

[iop890]

(07-05-2018 09:04 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 05:51 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

Watermelon only has any flavor when you salt it. Otherwise it's just a strange cucumber.

You must live in a state with sour and bland ones that are not sugar sweet.

I feel bad for you son.

How do non-Texans even live, with their tiny bland watermelons and objectively inferior barbecue?

Texas watermelons are the best. I remember being a kid and being forced to stand outside selling those huge fuckers outside my uncle's tire shop during the summer. I'd go through dozens and dozens in a day.

Oh, and just like with girls, the yellow ones taste the best.