« prev   random   next »

11
2

Global Cooling 1/2 degree in last 2 years.

By Onvacation following x   2018 May 18, 1:27pm 17,301 views   352 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/860837?section=newsfront&keywords=earth-cool-half-degree-nasa&year=2018&month=05&date=16&id=860837&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18

« First    « Previous    Comments 161 - 240 of 352    Next »    Last »

161   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 2, 7:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
97% of scientists

Why do only 97% of global warming climate change scientists believe in co2 caused CAGW?
How do the other 3% feed their children?
162   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 2, 9:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
jazz_music says

The discussion of significant figures

Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.


Checking in with this thread to see some people don't get it still.

Here's another simple example. It's often cited that moms have 2.4 children on average. Obviously everyone involved in the survey or census gave an answer accurate to one significant figure. Do you think that the only reason the 2.4 number is valid is that every parent gave the answer in the form 3.0 children, 1.0 children (rather than 3 chidren, 1 child)? Yes, this is different, becasue it's not also about the fact that over the long hall (in a large sample) when temperature is rounded to the nearest tenth, it's just as likely rounded up as down. If not, then for year to year differences purposes the bias (say e.g. bias toward rounding up) is removed, i.e from year to year the values are just as likely to be rounded up as down. Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.
163   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 2, 9:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.


This gets to what this is really about.

There's one type of person that cares about the future (after they're gone), and understands risk, and thinks that an 80% chance or even a 20% chance that ACC is real and that political pressure to change energy sources sooner rather than later can make a difference in the future (even financially) of mankind, then it's worth it.

Then there's another kind of person, who thinks that even if the chance that ACC is wrong is say 10%, it's worth it to claim it's false now, so that if that turns out they're right, they'll have bragging rights that they called it. IF they're wrong, then that sucks either way.

We're all gamblers to some degree, but that type of person is interested in a different kind of "win" than I am. And they're playing the long shot with a huge downside. OR maybe not, since the worst of it won't affect them personally.
164   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 2, 11:00pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.


Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:

"One year ago, on June 1, President Trump announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Climate Treaty, or the Paris Accord. The significance of this wise and correct decision still rings true today.

President Trump’s action removed the U.S. from an unrealistic goal of reducing carbon emissions that would have cost our nation billions of dollars, harmed our economy, a loss of millions of jobs, and have done very little to reduce the earth's temperature, its supposed main purpose. His decision saved our country from contributing $100 billion per year until 2020 for the U.N. Green Climate Fund, a gigantic wealth transfer program to developing countries.
"

marcus, please let me try to help you as well, although your insistence on wilful ignorance does make that difficult.

marcus says
over the long hall....


there is a long ceiling.

marcus says
some people don't get it still.

Here's another simple example. It's often cited that moms have 2.4 children on average.


Your example of counting children is, again, inapposite, for the reason that you ignored above. It comes down to the difference between counting and measuring. Counts can be exact, as integers can, but measurements cannot. "Exact numbers...are either defined numbers or result of a count. Exact numbers cannot be simplified and have an infinite number of significant figures. Measured numbers have a limited number of significant figures." When you say that "some people don't get it," you appear to be either projecting or demonstrating partial self-awareness.

marcus says
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.


Whoever poses as a math teacher disproves that pose by failing to understand the difference between counting and measuring when considering significant figures.

marcus says
that type of person is interested in a different kind of "win" than I am.


First, there are more "types" of people than you listed. Second, your position (transfer hundreds of billion$ from the scientifically advanced world to backwards kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation) does not enable you to "win" in any way other than emotionally feeling (and signaling) virtue. Regardless of the probabilities involved in measuring and predicting climate change, your preferred policy has no chance of actually managing the climate. You have not proposed a solution, but rather have merely endorsed a corrupt scam to transfer a lot of money so that you can feel better.

I did try to explain that to LeonDurham (AKA joeyjoejoejr, AKA tatupu70, AKA probably more aliases that I've lost track of), but received only strawmen, lies, and ad hominem taunts in reply. There are no winners in that context, and the one who loses least is the one who walks away first, thus wasting the least amount of time.
165   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 2, 11:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
values are just as likely to be rounded up as down.

No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.
166   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 2, 11:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.

That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.
167   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 2, 11:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

There's one type of person that cares about the future

And they're really concerned that their carbon credits will be worthless if the scam is exposed.
168   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 2, 11:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
the worst of it won't affect them personally.

I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.

When will the consequences of CAGW start?
169   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 2, 11:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:


Thank you. Maybe I should refer to it as "The Fraud".
170   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 3, 1:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.


No, that was never the mainstream belief. Iwog got a little extreme , but only talking about if the trend continued, it was a speculative possibility he mentioned, based on the bizzarre trends in the arctic in 2015/2016.(NOTE: It's the coming down from that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend).

THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.

http://patrick.net/post/1316363?offset=0#comment-1509438
171   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 3, 1:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

YOu're arguments are such trolls that I can't help but wonder whether the Koch brothers pay you for such nonsense. Or perhaps we have the honor of having an actual Koch brother on this forum (unlikely) >

Onvacation says
No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.


We're not even in the same argument. All along I've been responding to your claim that citing average annual global temperatures down to hundredths of a degree doesn't make sense. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.
172   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 6:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says

That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.


No, it was curious. I was pointing out how he completely misunderstands how to interpret the data.
173   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 7:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change


And, fyi, the scientific community is more appropriately referring to it as climate change because the effects are more than just higher temps.

But there's no doubt that temps are rising. It can be seen in so many different measurements: temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc.
174   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 3, 7:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
 

Onvacation says
I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.


No, that was never the mainstream belief.

If catastrophe is not the alarmist belief what is?
175   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 3, 7:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend)

What? And I am not talking about the typo.
176   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 3, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.

So, is the hockey stick gonna happen or not? When?
Skeptics want to know.
177   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 3, 7:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
. As for adjustments and process, it is true that I expect and trust most of the super majority of scientists weighing in to be far more skeptical about data than you or I ever will be THAT IS WITHOUT BIAS, or at least with minimal bias.

Many people are ignorant of the fact that the alarmist manipulate temperature data.
178   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 3, 7:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
temperature readings, ice caps, bird migration patterns, sea levels, snow pack melting data, etc

I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.
179   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 3, 7:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:

On second thought, CAGW is an appropriate name.
180   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.


It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.
181   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 3, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@Patrick--

My post isn't appearing. what's up?
182   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 5, 7:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Onvacation says
I am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.


It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.

Obfuscation it is.LeonDurham says
My post isn't appearing. what's up?

Maybe the numbers are too small?
183   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 5, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Obfuscation it is


OK--how many times does it need to get posted?

Look, here are the facts:

1. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising and have been rising for decades.
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.
3. Global temperature has risen over the last 50 years. This is shown by temperature readings, bird migration patterns, seal level measurements, ice pack measurements, snow pack melting data, et. al.
4. The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
184   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 5, 8:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


Just preserving this...
185   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 5, 8:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Just preserving this...


It's a keeper.
186   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 6, 12:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.


Sonce it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.

LeonDurham says
But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.
187   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 6, 12:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says

OK--how many times does it need to get posted?


At least once. Probably more.
188   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 6, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
once it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.


I said the mechanism is well understood. Please pay attention. Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem which is what I addressed in my last point.

CBOEtrader says
This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.


I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering. I simply stated the obvious--that the consequences of global warming are potentially dire, even if one thinks the probability of said consequences occurring are small.
189   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 6, 9:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
At least once. Probably more.


Then we should be good. It's been posted at least a half dozen times.
190   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 6:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says

I said the mechanism is well understood.
LeonDurham says
Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem

You can't have it both ways.LeonDurham says

I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering.

LeonDurham says
the consequences of global warming are potentially dire,

If the models are correct, ...
191   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 6:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
You can't have it both ways


Of course you can. The mechanism by which CO2 causes the Earth to warm up is well understood. How this extra warming input affects the multitude of other variables in the Earth's ecosystem is not as well understood. Are there other systems in play that dampen the warming input, eg the heat sinks of the oceans? But, when the oceans reach a certain temp will it affect jet streams and cause rapid heating? Much of that is difficult to model. But it doesn't change the fact that the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well understood.

Onvacation says
If the models are correct, ...


No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct.
192   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 7, 8:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct


I thought the science was settled.
193   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.


I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.
194   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
The models are obviously just that--models.


Just preserving this, too...
195   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 1:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Just preserving this, too...


Just curious--why would you feel the need to preserve that?
196   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 1:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere.


Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.

LeonDurham says
The models are obviously just that--models.


Whoops...
197   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.


Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

CO2 is needed for plant growth. Not sure if it's really true that the more the better, but regardless, you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.


Quigley says
LeonDurham says
The models are obviously just that--models.


Whoops.


No whoops at all. Models are a tool that should be utilized and understood.
198   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 3:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.


Just preserving this, too...
199   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 3:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.


Rebutting my argument with a mere statement suggesting that a scientific proof exists without either giving the proof or linking to it is meaningless. Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.
200   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 4:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Just preserving this, too...


Awfully trollish on this thread.

If you have a point, please make it.
201   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 4:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance


I'll assume that your burden of proof is ridiculously high as such literature exists and is quite easy to find. I can post many links if you're truly interested.
202   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 7, 9:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven.


Quigley says
he fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.


Are you serious ? I especially liked this part.

Quigley says
Rebutting my argument with a mere statement


No offense, but what you seem to think are arguments on your part are nothing more than statements.

Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.

As for your statement that any effects of increasing amounts of C02 in the atmosphere other than benefits to plants are nothing more than theories is grossly misleading but also it doesn't make it unscientific. In the past there a have been many theories that were accepted by scientific communities based on analysis and Math, before they were proven true with empirical evidence. Something being theoretical doesn't mean that it's not true enough to act on. Besides there have been experiments which support the theoretical in this case.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
203   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 12:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
LeonDurham says
Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.


Just preserving this, too...


Yes, this one is a real beaut.
204   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 8, 1:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.


I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.


You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.

(Did I virtue signal properly. Sorry, new at this.)
205   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Jun 8, 1:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.


Yup models are just tools. It's the politicians, leftwing fundamentalists, and journalists who are unscientific.

Let's try this cause/effect thought exercise.

Cause: we give $$trillions to an international beaurocracy, who will...

Effect: totes save us from our own sins.

(Ya know cause beaurocracies ALWAYS save the day and benefit the working class. Always)

If you question any word of the above, you are a science denier.
206   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 6:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.


Nope--science deniers are the folks who claim the greenhouse effect (discovered in the mid 1800s) is a myth. Or that there is no evidence of temperature rising. Denying facts.
207   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 6:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Yes, this one is a real beaut.


Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.
208   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Malcolm says
Yes, this one is a real beaut.


Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.


There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.
209   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.


lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.

Like I said--trolling. (just reread the part about the Easter Bunny)
210   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.


I have an open challenge to anyone who can show an actual doom and gloom climate change prediction that came true or even just a photograph showing a rise in sea level. For all of the people who believe the way you do, not one has been able to, with a simple old and recent photograph, show any rise in the high water line, yet on my thread relating to this very topic, I have my own and other pictures showing no change on a fixed object.

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.
211   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
our logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.


You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying.

If you're going to attempt to engage in a constructive discussion, then at least read what I write and understand it.
212   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.


As an example.

You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.
213   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
You are basically saying that gravity doesn't exist because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.


A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.
214   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That's what makes it a religion, because it becomes a belief.
215   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says

A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.


Wrong. It means gravity is settled science. But there are many other variables that affect where the feather will land that can be modeled, but all the inputs have variability so the final outcome is a probability curve.

Just like the greenhouse effect is settled science. But its effect on Earth as CO2 increases can only be modeled.
216   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying


This is called equivocating. This allows a safe space for plausible deniability. If you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.
217   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
f you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it.


Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

I've consistently posted that one can argue the validity of the models. Most open minded people who look at all of the agreement in data showing a warming Earth believe that the climate is changing, but like I said earlier--models are models. They are not facts.
218   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.


Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.
219   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.


Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?
220   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Since you are not digesting what I am telling you let me be clear, with your own words.

CBOEtrader says
I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.


LeonDurham says
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.


Now with my words:

Malcolm says
asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.


The reason you think I missed something is because you don't understand the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because the predictive theory on its relationship to temperature didn't pan out. Therefore I simply go to the main point, the effect of human activity. The reason some of your comments are keepers is because of the bizare logic of admitting that the predictive theories might be flawed, even due to circumstances yet unknown (some consider it settled science), yet you still believe there is an actionable crisis.

That is why some of us are taken aback.
221   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?


curious2 says
LeonDurham says
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


Just preserving this...


Also preserving this.
222   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Good. I think that is a perfectly reasonable statement. No fear mongering.
223   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 8, 12:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

Well said!
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?
224   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 8, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

Is there a law of co2 planet heating?
225   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 12:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says

Is there a law of co2 planet heating?


Nope--as I've said time after time, we only have models that attempt to predict how the additional radiation that is re-emitted will ultimately change the climate on Earth.

Sure seems like you guys are arguing against a strawman.
226   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 3:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?


Similar behavior by followers and similar behavior by those controlling the followers. It’s almost like they follow this model like the Bible. Don’t you dare question the contradictions, that is heracy.

Yes, people need a belief or a cause to feel complete.
227   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 11, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.


Or this one Goran? Sure seems like a repeat offender to me.
228   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 12, 5:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.


The fact that one considers something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that they neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit their ignorance.

better?
229   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 6:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
The fact that one considers something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that they neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit their ignorance.

better?


Not according to the moderator. If a poster is clearly directly the attack at a user then it's still against the rules, regardless if they use "one" or "Trumpkins" or "libtards"
230   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 12, 1:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you.
231   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 1:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you


I'm not sure about the melting rate at the arctic, but the other two are correct. For now. The question is looking at the trends and models, what is going to happen in the future?
232   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 13, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says

I'm not sure about the melting rate at the arctic,

The melting between decades is much less than the melting between seasons. Unless you mistake the seasonal variations as an iwogian asymptote to hell!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
233   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 7:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

iwogian asymptote to hell!

Iwogian? Is that a "canard? (Yes, I know, a pun is the lowest form of humor).
234   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 15, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
he melting between decades is much less than the melting between seasons. Unless you mistake the seasonal variations as an iwogian asymptote to hell!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/


#1-- It's the trend that matters, not the seasonality.
#2-- You should be worried about the Antarctic, not the arctic.
#3-- The ice in Antarctica is melting faster than modeled.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/antarctica-lost-three-trillion-tonnes-174950597.html
235   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 15, 12:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
#3-- The ice in Antarctica is melting faster than modeled.

Then why is Florida still above sea level?
236   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 15, 12:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Then why is Florida still above sea level?


Can you show me the model that predicted Florida would be under water in 2018?
237   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 15, 12:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Onvacation says
Then why is Florida still above sea level?


Can you show me the model that predicted Florida would be under water in 2018?

I'm not the one posting links that say the ice is all melting and the sea level is rising.
238   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 28, 8:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Saved by volcanoes!
"If we have volcanic cooling, it does buy us a little bit of time. So does extra solar cooling," Folland told Haaretz. "It buys us a little bit of extra time to respond through mitigation or adaptation to global warming."

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/science-and-health/MAGAZINE-we-need-more-volcanoes-eruptions-slowed-global-warming-in-past-1.6155381
239   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 3, 8:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Again, if someone could show me with photographic proof that oceans are rising, I would be open minded. Here is another bit of photographic proof of basically no change, certainly no rise.

http://extra.heraldtribune.com/2016/06/09/throwback-thursday-photos-venice-avenue-then-and-now/
240   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 3, 8:45am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Here’s another one. Please take note, absolutely no change in the high water line, almost perfect match where the grass grows.

« First    « Previous    Comments 161 - 240 of 352    Next »    Last »



about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions