Climate Change!

[black_son_of_gray]

I think we can safely state that whole article is a load of palava. This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

Q: Did you actually read the whole document before you safely declared it "palava"?
Q: If, when reading the document to see what it actually says, and you had a question, did you look up the related references and read those?
Q: If, when reading the related references, you crossed words or techniques you didn't fully understand, did you consult multiple sources to find consistent and thorough explanations so that you could understand what was being discussed in the references?*
Q: Or, did you just write it off based on your presumptions/opinion?

This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

When you say something like "This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't" it sounds like you are declaring yourself one of the few blessed "critical thinkers" and all those authors are under some mass-delusion and none of them can think critically about the field they actually work in. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that is how it comes off to me.

*BTW, the process of answering the first three questions is called "research", which you mentioned earlier you have done a fair amount with regards to climate change.

[Riggerjack]

I love how this site gets used as factual. This site is as bad as any GW skeptic site. I think it's worse.

I will be the first to say this site has bias. However, if I went to a site dedicated to evolution vs creationism, I would expect bias as well. I didn't point you at it so you could confirm that it is biased. I pointed it out as a place to find the actual science, and all the debate about EVERY study. If you have any interest in the science, that is where you find it, AND all the criticism of it.

Linking to your blogger calling this other blogger names, or cherry picking, is just the Facebook quality "scientistics". The CC category of fake news.

[George the original one]

I think we can safely state that whole article is a load of palava. This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

Q: Did you actually read the whole document before you safely declared it "palava"?

He's totally forgotten that there was a survey of AMS meterologists, the same professional group publishing this article, which he is fond of quoting as proof that there's no concensus, so of course he didn't read past the headline. If he had read the article, he'd know there are some papers published in the article that did not establish links between certain weather conditions and climate change.

steveo73 made up his mind in 1994 as an undergrad, knows he's right, and doesn't need to review current research. Now that I've pointed out what he missed, he'll pull up the articles and use them in a later argument as "proof", but they'll be used in an apples/oranges comparison that includes politics since he's repeatedly proven he's not interested in the science.

[7Wannabe5]

jacob said: If you don't like the tone of skepticalscience.com, you might like the tone of http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Thanks, I do find it preferable.

Physics -check-known collection of negatives
Chemistry-check-known collection of negatives
Biology-check-known collection of negatives
Ecology- not entirely known collection of negatives
Economics- not entirely known collection of negatives
Politics and Sociology- hands in air, sad shake of head

[steveo73]

I think we can safely state that whole article is a load of palava. This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

Q: Did you actually read the whole document before you safely declared it "palava"?
Q: If, when reading the document to see what it actually says, and you had a question, did you look up the related references and read those?
Q: If, when reading the related references, you crossed words or techniques you didn't fully understand, did you consult multiple sources to find consistent and thorough explanations so that you could understand what was being discussed in the references?*
Q: Or, did you just write it off based on your presumptions/opinion?

This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

When you say something like "This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't" it sounds like you are declaring yourself one of the few blessed "critical thinkers" and all those authors are under some mass-delusion and none of them can think critically about the field they actually work in. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that is how it comes off to me.

*BTW, the process of answering the first three questions is called "research", which you mentioned earlier you have done a fair amount with regards to climate change.

I read some of it, declared it palava, sent it on to a respected climatolgist and she responded.

In her words "Hi Steve, I regard this extreme event attribution stuff as total garbage. Judy".

So I think that ends that one right there.

[steveo73]

I think we can safely state that whole article is a load of palava. This is actually an interesting way to discern who has the ability to critically think and who doesn't.

Q: Did you actually read the whole document before you safely declared it "palava"?

He's totally forgotten that there was a survey of AMS meterologists, the same professional group publishing this article, which he is fond of quoting as proof that there's no concensus, so of course he didn't read past the headline. If he had read the article, he'd know there are some papers published in the article that did not establish links between certain weather conditions and climate change.

steveo73 made up his mind in 1994 as an undergrad, knows he's right, and doesn't need to review current research. Now that I've pointed out what he missed, he'll pull up the articles and use them in a later argument as "proof", but they'll be used in an apples/oranges comparison that includes politics since he's repeatedly proven he's not interested in the science.

Personal attacks have been working so great for you guys haven't they ? Unfortunately the science hasn't changed in the time that I studied GW or at least it hasn't changed to be more supportive of the alarmist theories.

Interestingly the proof to back up the theory is even less. I suppose the real question is "are we ready to call the theory a scam today ?". Personally I'm not that arrogant. I think we should keep watching this space to see if we do get any evidence. It's not likely to be something to be concerned about at all though within our lifetimes and probably our kids as well.

Of course that is if we are using science to validate theories.

[steveo73]

I love how this site gets used as factual. This site is as bad as any GW skeptic site. I think it's worse.

I will be the first to say this site has bias. However, if I went to a site dedicated to evolution vs creationism, I would expect bias as well. I didn't point you at it so you could confirm that it is biased. I pointed it out as a place to find the actual science, and all the debate about EVERY study. If you have any interest in the science, that is where you find it, AND all the criticism of it.

Linking to your blogger calling this other blogger names, or cherry picking, is just the Facebook quality "scientistics". The CC category of fake news.

Yes and no. I'm someone who looks at the facts. The skeptical science site is backed by someone who has a history of using fraud. I don't suggest people utilise a site of an extreme skeptic. That would be just as dumb as utilising the skeptical science site.

I use the site that Judith Curry responds on. She is scientific in her approach. That means that she will admit that there are some areas of concern and she admits that her viewpoint is not that far out of line with the standard viewpoint.

The problem with this subject is that being rational, logical and scientific puts you in the category of an extremist. Anyone who is convinced of the hypothesis is in reality an extremist based upon the science.

[theanimal]

This is almost unbelievable.

[steveo73]

This is almost unbelievable.

It is. It's actually hilarious how poorly the alarmists react to the facts. What will be funny is if in another 20-50 years or so and the whole thing completely breaks down what the retractions will be.

I don't think that there is any chance of it playing out the way the extremists are predicting. I think basically a 0% chance. There is still a chance that the hypothesis will prove to be correct but it's the impact that will be relevant. We aren't though ready to state that the hypothesis is remotely true. We shouldn't write it off yet but we should be stating clearly and factually that there are massive flaws that have not been resolved.

[theanimal]

Are you really that blind? I'm talking about your responses. It's been the same thing now for 2 BIG threads on this topic. Nobody has the facts except you and your chosen experts. It must be nice being so enlightened compared to us mortals. Around in circles and circles and circles.

I'm counting down the posts until this one gets locked like the other one.

[George the original one]

Unfortunately the science hasn't changed in the time that I studied GW or at least it hasn't changed to be more supportive of the alarmist theories.

How would you know? You've previously admitted you haven't reviewed the science since 1994.

[bottlerocks]

The other thread got locked specifically because of this so I would take Jacob's route and only reply when you absolutely can't resist any longer (like 1/25 of the times it happens).

[subgard]

Exchange between a climate scientist and climate skeptic on Bizarro Earth.

SKEPTIC: Over the past century or so, we've been digging up large amounts of a particular mineral, and the combustion products are being released into the atmosphere. Could this change the climate?
SCIENTIST: Nah, burning stuff is a natural process.
SKEPTIC: But the gas that's released from the burning stays in the atmosphere. Measurements of it have increased with the rate of burning. The actual composition of the atmosphere is changing. That doesn't change the climate?
SCIENTIST: There's no way of knowing. Climates are too complex.
SKEPTIC: This particular gas let's sunlight pass through it, but absorbs heat radiation from the Earth. It does it in a measurable way. You can't build a model on that? This is just a layman's guess, but it seems like it might make the atmosphere hotter.
SCIENTIST:How could we tell if it was this gas, or some natural cycle?
SKEPTIC: There is both a temperature record and a record of this gas being released into the atmosphere. Couldn't you at least check to see if there's any correlation?
SCIENTIST: What would that prove? Any correlation could easily be coincidence. My scientific opinion is that there's know way of figuring out what happens when you change the atmospheric composition of an entire planet.
SKEPTIC: I'm skeptical of your opinion.

[steveo73]

Unfortunately the science hasn't changed in the time that I studied GW or at least it hasn't changed to be more supportive of the alarmist theories.

How would you know? You've previously admitted you haven't reviewed the science since 1994.

I definitely have. I've had some time to investigate it and it doesn't appear to have changed or at least it's changed for the worst if you are an alarmist which is definitely the predominant faulty belief within this thread.

A great example is that link that was posted about extreme weather events now being caused by global warming. It's like it's not working as planned let's go and come up with another piece of crap that we can use to get some funding. It's the hail mary play.

I suppose you need that when your hypothesis isn't being backed up by reality.

So the science hasn't changed. We still have a hypothesis that hasn't been proven. In that time though the data is starting to invalidate the hypothesis.

You can all scream as loud as you want. You can continue attacking the messenger. You could also take a step back and evaluate your faulty beliefs. I don't really care what you do though. It's your life and you can believe whatever you want to believe.

[steveo73]

Exchange between a climate scientist and climate skeptic on Bizarro Earth.

SKEPTIC: Over the past century or so, we've been digging up large amounts of a particular mineral, and the combustion products are being released into the atmosphere. Could this change the climate?
SCIENTIST: Nah, burning stuff is a natural process.
SKEPTIC: But the gas that's released from the burning stays in the atmosphere. Measurements of it have increased with the rate of burning. The actual composition of the atmosphere is changing. That doesn't change the climate?
SCIENTIST: There's no way of knowing. Climates are too complex.
SKEPTIC: This particular gas let's sunlight pass through it, but absorbs heat radiation from the Earth. It does it in a measurable way. You can't build a model on that? This is just a layman's guess, but it seems like it might make the atmosphere hotter.
SCIENTIST:How could we tell if it was this gas, or some natural cycle?
SKEPTIC: There is both a temperature record and a record of this gas being released into the atmosphere. Couldn't you at least check to see if there's any correlation?
SCIENTIST: What would that prove? Any correlation could easily be coincidence. My scientific opinion is that there's know way of figuring out what happens when you change the atmospheric composition of an entire planet.
SKEPTIC: I'm skeptical of your opinion.

Add some facts to the debate and ask some pertinent questions.

1. How high relatively is this gas at this point compared to the history of the Earth ? Answer extremely low.
2. How much of an impact does this gas have on the atmosphere ? Answer extremely low. The fake scientists use feedback mechanisms to justify their beliefs. They can't prove these feedback mechanisms work the way they model them though.
3. Is the data matching the models predictions ? Answer - no.
4. Is there any proof regarding extreme weather events being caused by human intervention ? Answer - no.
5. Does the Earth's climate change without human intervention ? Answer - yes.

In our world though people still believe in an unproven hypothesis and actually try and make out the people that appear to be using the facts are the weird ones.

I think that this is changing though. There have been too many false studies and incorrect statistics produced by the alarmists. I think a lot of people are now cottoning on to what has happened.

[steveo73]

The other thread got locked specifically because of this so I would take Jacob's route and only reply when you absolutely can't resist any longer (like 1/25 of the times it happens).

There is a tendency to not want to face the facts when they don't comply with your beliefs. This is one of the approaches that alarmists utilise to prove themselves correct.

Don't face the facts. Stop the facts from being heard.

[Ego]

Jerry Brown speaking at the American Geophysical Union.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSgncpqWtE

[bryan]

@subgard, what the heck? Did you swap SKEPTIC/SCIENTIST? If not it sounds like the SCIENTIST is simply trolling!

[steveo73]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urfPl8bahwc

It's interesting hearing about the fraudulent behaviour that alarmists are using.

[Gilberto de Piento]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urfPl8bahwc

It's interesting hearing about the fraudulent behaviour that alarmists are using.

I started watching the video and then noticed another video from the same author is titled "Sam Osmanagich On Why The Elites Want To Keep The Secrets Of Bosnia's Pyramids Hidden." I just couldn't take it seriously after that, sorry.