patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

6 years ago: Forbes published this lad's argument on why the earth is in fact cooling...

Lol Peter Ferrara is a giant tool bag. Here's a direct quote from him:

“While I am not a scientist, and write primarily on economics, tax policy and budget issues, I have been fascinated over the years by Heartland’s work on climate change.”

Why is it so many pundits from the climate change denier sect preface everything they say with "while I am not a scientist"? Oh right, because they're not scientists and don't have a fucking clue how any of it works.

Ferrara was on the take from Casino Jack Abramoff for writing idiotic op-eds in the early aughts. Fuck him

These people do not and just won't update their beliefs based on accumulating evidence.
Since 2000 I've been hearing: "AGW is a fad.", "scientists have been wrong before", "this is the last nail in AGW coffin...", "Al Gore...", "...Chinese conspiracy...", "...fraud...", "Look at this snow storm...".
Yeah well... it keeps happening... Must be a bad coincidence.

These people do not and just won't update their beliefs based on accumulating evidence.

And you AGW people avoid like hell talking about solutions. If AGW is that serious, we need to do something.

HeadSet says

ThreeBays says

HeadSet says

So ThreeBays, any solutions other than arguing with heretics and voting Democrat?

For change, conservatives can stand up and support the science too and tell their politicians they don't like being lied to and sold down the river. Politicization of this issue that affects us all is the tragedy.

You just proved my point. You proposed no solutions, just a another jab at deniers and an admission that AGW is political.

Solutions are something concrete like:
Curbing 1st world population growth to a level sustainable by renewables
Importing only from nations following similar envronmental laws as ours
Increased fuel taxes and tolls to decrease gasoline use

Trouble is, Democrats dislike the 1st two items and the fuel tax idea will be unpopular with voters

You mean things like sign things like the Paris agreements with other nations, and follow it?

You mean things like sign things like the Paris agreements with other nations, and follow it?

Oh those Paris accords are a joke and you know it. Funny how the US carbon emissions have decreased while signers like China carbon emissions have increased. The Paris accords are more about transferring money than cutting back emissions.

Evan F. says

Oh, thank God, I was hoping an established climate scientist such as yourself, who's done actual research, had a concrete conclusion about the next 5 years of global temperatures.

I expect 2 to 3 degrees of cooling.

Evan F. says

Nope
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/07/the-u-s-just-had-its-warmest-may-in-history-blowing-past-1934-dust-bowl-record/?utm_term=.68e265152500

Fake news. WaPo thinks Russia beat Hillary.

Man finite, lives in an infinite world. Their are some newer longer term research projects going now, much is happening in antarctica.

It took millions of years with just natural conditions to get the earth into such a pristine state of wonders. Just the right distance from the sun, a green and blue planet, wow! We have shown planet earth, that it's not a very big place at all, it's mostly water, as are we!
Luckily the largess is aware of it at least. I mean .. look at cancer, autism rates, etc. We live finite lives in an infinite universe, so shortsighted and blind to continuum.

It's just a long slog taking the roundabout way until we might find greener pastures again, doubtful it seems.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-unprecedented-rate-climate-change-wxc/index.html
Greenland's massive ice sheets contain enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet. The cool thing is that the melting is speeding up, are you hoping for a miracle?

Onvacation says

Fake news. WaPo thinks Russia beat Hillary.

How does Russia beating Hilary, or whatever word salad you're using as an equivalency here, have anything to do with temperature measurements? They're just reporting cold, hard data. There's no interpretation by WaPo. The FACT is that temperatures in May were 65.4 degrees beating the previous high mark of 64.7 degrees set in 1934. Where is the 'fake news' in that?

Onvacation says

I expect 2 to 3 degrees of cooling.

You willing to put money on that?

everything says

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-unprecedented-rate-climate-change-wxc/index.html

The article, that does not really say much, comes from the biggest fake news network out there.

everything says

Greenland's massive ice sheets contain enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.

And the ocean contains enough salt to kill billions of garden snails. What's the point?

The FACT is that temperatures in May were 65.4 degrees beating the previous high mark of 64.7 degrees set in 1934.

Sorry, that was me. I had some boiled cabbage and beans last May and farted.

Evan F. says

You willing to put money on that?

Might be illegal in US - but if not, Patrick could organize Patnet betting platform, where each of the two betting sides deposits the bet, and winner takes all minus some % for poobah. Or incorporate site in Nevada...
And if person passionately arguing the point does not agree to a bet, then avatar would be changed to a chicken :)

Evan F. says

. The FACT is that temperatures in May were 65.4 degrees beating the previous high mark of 64.7 degrees set in 1934. Where is the 'fake news' in that?

Got a link on how they measure worldwide global temperature for the last couple hundred years?
Didn't think so.
If the temperature continues to fall while co2 keeps rising will you abandon alarmism?

Evan F. says

The FACT is that temperatures in May were 65.4 degrees beating the previous high mark of 64.7 degrees set in 1934.

Link please? because the statement above is ridiculous.

Onvacation says

Link please? because the statement above is ridiculous.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201805

Onvacation says

If the temperature continues to fall while co2 keeps rising will you abandon alarmism?

Absolutely. But temperatures aren't going to fall.

Evan F. says

Absolutely. But temperatures aren't going to fall.

They already have. Temperature peaked in 2016. It has been going down ever since.

Onvacation says

Temperature peaked in 2016. It has been going down ever since.

Two years can not be considered a trend. May be just a fluke.

d6rB says

May be

May be the science is not settled, may be co2 does not warm the planet. Maybe the sun has a bigger influence on earth's temperature than humans do.

May be?

Onvacation says

Temperature peaked in 2016. It has been going down ever since.

So, just to be clear, you think that based upon your extensive scientific background, your intuition, etc. that global average temperatures will somehow plummet 2-3 degrees Celsius in the next 5 years, correct? Even though year-to-year fluctuations in the average temperatures generally are in the tenths of degrees Celsius?

I would be willing to bet a great deal of money on that. If the global average temperature drops 3° Celsius (or more) in the next 5 years, you win. Otherwise, I win. But even without money on the line, I think it's important to pin this idea and keep tabs on it for the next five years.

Honestly I hope you're right. But sadly, you won't be.

Evan F. says

So, just to be clear, you think that based upon your extensive scientific background, your intuition, etc. that global average temperatures will somehow plummet 2-3 degrees Celsius

Not my scientific background but the background of competent solar scientists, not global warming climate change alarmists.

Onvacation says

background of competent solar sciemtist

Which one(s)?

Evan F. says

Even though year-to-year fluctuations in the average temperatures generally are in the tenths of degrees Celsius?

Hundredths of a degree if you believe the worldwide average annual temperature can actually be measured with some precision. 29/100 rise between 2014 and 2015. 9/100 rise between 2015 and 2016. And a 19/100 drop between 2016 and 2018.

It's funny that these numbers, from noaa, keep changing. Why do you suppose noaa finds the need to adjust the historical temperature record?

Evan F. says

If the global average temperature drops 3° Celsius (or more) in the next 5 years, you win. Otherwise, I win. But even without money on the line, I think it's important to pin this idea and keep tabs on it for the next five years.

Agreed we have to hold predictors of doom accountable.
Al Gore claimed an ice free arctic by 2013, iwog predicted the ice would be gone by 2022. Guy Mcpherson says we will all be dead by 2025 from the heat.

What is your prediction?

Evan F. says

Honestly I hope you're right. But sadly, you won't be.

Honestly?
I hope I am wrong.

Would you prefer living in a frozen tundra or a warm rain forest?
Time tells truths that now will never know.

Evan F. says

Onvacation says

background of competent solar scientists (spelling corrected)

Which one(s)?

The ones that alarmists would claim are disreputable because they fill their gas tanks with fossil fuel.

Onvacation says

The ones that alarmists would claim are disreputable because they fill their gas tanks with fossil fuel.

Like whom? Brilliant, by the way, preempting the possibility that the individuals you're sourcing just might be totally unscientific in their approach.

Science is not consensus. It is the testing of hypothesis. The hypothesis that rising co2 causes the temperature to rise catastrophically is being tested by the solar minimum we are heading into. The co2 is rising but the temperature is not.

I will admit I am wrong if the temperature goes up.
How much more does the temperature have to drop before the alarmists stop wailing?

You still haven't said which sources you're using to reach your conclusions.

"The climate data has been parameterized!"

"Parameterized? What's that mean?"

"It means faked to fit a foregone conclusion. The government needed a definition of 'harm' to proceed with their proposals, and they intimidated the 'scientists' into giving it to them."