Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a dumb idea?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a dumb idea? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:10:37 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		How many times do I have to say this. Sun spots are all and good when it comes to climate...except we're currently in one of the least active sun spot cycles in recent history, so it's not exactly fair to use that as an excuse for climate change.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:10:55 AM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have previously documented


Absolutely nothing.






(And then, of course, there's Thompson).

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:11:54 AM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

How many times do I have to say this. Sun spots are all and good when it comes to climate...except we're currently in one of the least active sun spot cycles in recent history, so it's not exactly fair to use that as an excuse for climate change.


I didn't.

My brother did. And it's interesting at minimum.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:14:29 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		Might be a good idea to correct him then.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:29:07 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Climate change is not yet a fact. But there is strong evidence that man is affecting it.


Nothing in science is settled forever. There's always new evidence and larger paradigms.

"Not yet a fact" is pseudo-logic for "I don't care for the current science, even though what it shows seems to work."

And he didn't "simply get called a name." He linked to "a paper published in" and the link was a blog. The "publication" linked to in that blog was another blog. And a search of that "publication" showed it was -- another blog.

Reality is, he linked to something insubstantial and made false claims about it. Either he was careless, gullible, dishonest, or some combination thereof. His continued denial after being called on (and resorting to name calling) is just stubborn, silly, and ignorant behavior.

That doesn't leave much motivation to check out the rest of his "science," does it.

He's doing what a lot of would be "researchers" do: step one, decide what your opinion is going to be (without benefit of thorough analysis), and step two, search Google for links that parrot your thus uninformed opinion. Adding lots of data to appear to be analytical doesn't change that beginning fallacy of bias vs. actual research.

When's the last time he changed his views because of new evidence? Because that's what science does. Anything else is just ego, and it's antithetical to learning. When you think you already know everything, the brain is off duty.

Science is a mode of discovery, not a vehicle for chest-beating and defensive attempts to prop up one's invented sense of superiority by way of compensation.

And that is entirely a fair assessment, at least by the history of his posts.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:42:55 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline 		I thought that playing with quote boxes -even in this section - to change the original meaning was still against the rules? I thought it was a "party foul"? No? Oh, well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have previously documented


Absolutely nothing.




(And then, of course, there's Thompson).




I know next to nothing about science but I try to educate myself, a bit. I was watching a TV show, just the other day called "How The Earth Works". I think it airs on History Channel? I honestly don't remember.

These scientist were putting forth an idea that we're more likely headed for another ice age. According to these scientists, not only are we "due" but they explained the reasoning behind it.

Again, I know next to nothing about science but they present "small scale" experiments to back up their claims.

Their theory is that Iceland is going to be the cause of our eventual demise. Well ... really, it has to do with all the volcanos and ice in Iceland and it has to do with the same concept behind what they believe killed the dinosaurs; clouds, blocking the sun.

It seemed logical and straight forward to me. Of course, part of my opinion is based upon personal observance of the average global temperature being level or a touch cooler for almost the last two decades. It's why the guys with the sandwich boards and bells changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". They couldn't refute the evidence so they spun it.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 5/23/2014 8:16:28 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 7:52:57 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline 		They changed from Global warming to climate change because Global warming is easily misinterpreted as just that, warming. When in fact it's the addition of energy into the climate system, which causes a variety of different effects outside of a warmer summer's day. It's much more complex than that. It's like how Darwin's theory of natural selection was incorporated into Evolutionary theory. Natural selection is just one part of of many within the theory of Evolution, just like how warmer yearly temperatures are one part of Human induced Climate Change.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 5/23/2014 7:53:20 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 9:27:34 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have previously documented


Absolutely nothing.






(And then, of course, there's Thompson).

Who contstantly points out the ignorant,unsubstantiated,childish drivel in your posts.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 11:02:18 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

How many times do I have to say this. Sun spots are all and good when it comes to climate...except we're currently in one of the least active sun spot cycles in recent history, so it's not exactly fair to use that as an excuse for climate change.


With the minor problem of course, that you are wrong.

The same magnetic fields that are associated with the formation of sunspots are also responsble for shielding the earth from ionizing radiation.

Which directly affects cloud formation - and hence, temperature.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 11:06:08 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So let me see if I get this straight, articles disputing climate change written by a man with absolutely no training in the field of climatology even going so far as to say that 97.7% of climatologists who repeatedly published peer reviewed articles (reviewed by noted members of the field) are wrong and doing their research wrong and basically that the climate data should come from rocks and not ice cores is correct?

And the "peers" that reviewed his work are all climate change deniers means they are objective? FYI here is the total number of peer reviewed papers written by climate change deniers
Here is a study on just the peer reviewed papers about cliamte change, showing 97% support climate change and mankind's involvement
Did you know that papers published denying AGW numbered exactly 1, papers supporting the AGW theory totaled a couple of more, like 8,999 more.

Now, find 9000 published articles denying AGW and we have a debate, as it is now, it is a battle of wits and the deniers are unarmed.


What the fuck is AGW?

Jlf, I think I can guess from the above where you stand on this issue. Without links, Phydeaux, what are your thoughts on this subject?


Without links, the my thoughts are much the same as they were with links Nook.

You have two studies, both done by non scientist activists. Cook, for one, announcing what the results would be before the study was even conducted.

Both were widely ridiculed as
a). Non scientific.
b). With methodology holes so large they were pointless.

For example - cooks choice of search terms excluded 33 of the top 50 referenced papers. Both these studies are
complete hogwash.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 11:15:43 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And here is a journal entry documenting how Australia's 'adjustments' to land based temperature sites increased global warming 40%...
In other words, adjustments account for 40% of the observed warming in australia. The same neat technique that nasa did .. although less pronounced.


http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/

One of the complaints listed is that certain measuring stations have been re-classified ("adjusted") as 'rural' from 'urban', this manipulation having been effected in order to bring about data readings more favourable to human-caused AGW. 15 measuring stations are named. Here they are, along with their respective populations (all population figures are taken from wiki):
Cairns AMO,
pop 143,528

Rockhampton AMO,
pop 61,724

Gladstone MO,
pop 28,808

Port Hedland AMO,
pop 15,044

Roebourne,
pop 857

Geraldton AMO,
pop 35,749

Albany AMO,
pop 33,650

Alice Springs AMO,
pop 28,605

Strathalbyn,
pop 5,654

Mount Gambier AMO,
pop 25,199

Richmond AMO,
pop 7025

Mildura AMO,
pop 31,361

East Sale AMO*,
pop 13,186

Cashmore Airport,
no listing in wiki

Launceston Airport^.
no listing



With the exception of Cairns, the population figures all indicate that these supposedly 'urban' areas are little more than villages.

The website mentions 3 other towns, all in outback NSW. They are:
Bourke population 2,840
Brewarrina population 1,254
Glen Innes population 5,173

Out of the 18 locations, all bar 1 are clearly or predominantly rural areas. 2 supposedly urban areas (Roebourne and Cashmore) are so obscure I"ve never heard of them and neither is listed in wiki.

The claim that they have been falsely and deliberately reclassified in order to bolster the human-caused AGW case is patently absurd.



* The population figure given here is for the entire township of Sale. East Sale's possibly sole claim to fame is that it is the location of an RAAF base and therefore can be safely assumed to have a population less than that of Sale, ie. < 13,186.
^ Launceston Airport is located in rural Tasmania 15 kms SE of Launceston population 106,153


Well, this certainly demonstrates yours and Music's reading skills.

So lets summarize a few of your errors.

In siting a temperature station, there are rigorous requirements for classifying a station as urban, rural etc.
Asphault retains heat. Direct Sunligh is a no- no. Ideal stations are supposed to be 75(?) feet from man made coverage etc.
And in a position to avoid heat island effects.

Notice that these effects are *independent* of population. Stations situated at airports are almost always classified as urban due to the heat absorption of the tarmac.

Finally, they are supposed to have a long history of accurate readings in order to qualify. And the reasons for the adjustments to a stations reading are supposed to be documented.

The study is not critiquing that all 100 named stations (yes, all 100 are in fact named) are adjusted. Its critiquing that the adjustments are done subjectively in violation of the rules.

So essentially, subjective modifications were made to the temperature record that increased 'warming' by 40%.
Nice try tho.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 11:50:27 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Apparently you didn't read the links from your own sources. Because there is no such paper.

"Not your issue" because "nature climate change" is a blog, not a periodical publishing papers.

You're a fool.



And you're an arrogant prick who is flat out wrong. Both papers were published and peer reviewed and links provided.
But you can't dispute the science so once again you attack people, rather than data.


Ah you and DomKen doubling down - ignore what is actually printed. "Don't read that link - Believe me!"

It really is hard to imagine how that is working for you. But since you couldn't click through.. I'll lay it all out for you in nice baby steps.

Nature Geoscience is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Nature Publishing Group. The editor-in-chief is Heike Langenberg. It was established in January 2008.

The first paper I referenced was:
Energy budget constraints on climate response:
Alexander Otto,
Friederike E. L. Otto,
Olivier Boucher,
John Church,
Gabi Hegerl,
Piers M. Forster,
Nathan P. Gillett,
Jonathan Gregory,
Gregory C. Johnson,
Reto Knutti,
Nicholas Lewis,
Ulrike Lohmann,
Jochem Marotzke,
Gunnar Myhre,
Drew Shindell,
Bjorn Stevens
& Myles R. Allen

Nature Geoscience
6,
415–416
(2013)
doi:10.1038/ngeo1836

Published online
19 May 2013

The second article

Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations
Roger W. Bodman,
Peter J. Rayner
& David J. Karoly:

Nature Climate Change
(2013)
doi:10.1038/nclimate1903

Received
19 June 2012
Accepted
15 April 2013
Published online
26 May 2013


Now you are correct in one technicality. The first is a paper, the second is a letter. Both passed editorial and peer review. Both published. Links and authors provided.

So if you want to say I'm wrong because the second article is a referenced, annotated and published and reviewed letter, rather than paper - well thats a little slim. But have at it.

But it sort of fits the record with you, DK, TK and others doesn't it.

Ignore the huge amounts of papers and content posted -

Temperatures were HOTTER in the minoan and roman warming periods.
Global warming occurs roughly every 1000 years - which has nothing to do with human influence. And again with a different period of roughly 42000 years.
Ignore that vostok ice cores show that CO2 concentrations LAG temperatures by 800 years.
Ignore that historically there are huge periods where the temperature correlaton with co2 is not observed for millions of years - notably 25 million years ago.

Ignore that the lead authors of IPCC chapters have said that the modals for aerosol formation are wrong.
Ignore that we are on a cooling trend for the last 15 years, and overall for the last 2000.

Ignore that the second paper -oops letter found metholodological errors that caused catastrophic IPCC projections to be overstated by ~30%.

Your comments don't comprise a single substantive post.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 5/23/2014 11:53:09 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 12:57:02 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

How many times do I have to say this. Sun spots are all and good when it comes to climate...except we're currently in one of the least active sun spot cycles in recent history, so it's not exactly fair to use that as an excuse for climate change.


With the minor problem of course, that you are wrong.

The same magnetic fields that are associated with the formation of sunspots are also responsble for shielding the earth from ionizing radiation.

Which directly affects cloud formation - and hence, temperature.


...You do know that the earth and sun have separate electromagnetic fields...right?

The earth is shielded by our own magnetic field, which is generated by the rotation of our outer core within the interior of the earth. It's what focuses the ionizing radiation into the north and south poles, creating the northern and southern lights as these ionized particles interact with chemicals in the atmosphere.

Seriously man, you really need to go back and retake some science courses.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 1:49:02 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

How many times do I have to say this. Sun spots are all and good when it comes to climate...except we're currently in one of the least active sun spot cycles in recent history, so it's not exactly fair to use that as an excuse for climate change.


With the minor problem of course, that you are wrong.

The same magnetic fields that are associated with the formation of sunspots are also responsble for shielding the earth from ionizing radiation.

Which directly affects cloud formation - and hence, temperature.

Are you nuts? really?

The suns magnetic field does interact with the Van Allen but the Van Allen belt is generated by the Earth's magnetic field not the sun's and the Van Allen is what shields us from ionizing radiation. The sun spews forth ionizing radiation constantly.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 6:37:07 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Might be a good idea to correct him then.


I wouldn't.

He's, offering his opinion.

Not his fact.

(Everyone else here seems to believe they have facts).

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 6:38:11 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Climate change is not yet a fact. But there is strong evidence that man is affecting it.


Nothing in science is settled forever. There's always new evidence and larger paradigms.

"Not yet a fact" is pseudo-logic for "I don't care for the current science, even though what it shows seems to work."

And he didn't "simply get called a name." He linked to "a paper published in" and the link was a blog. The "publication" linked to in that blog was another blog. And a search of that "publication" showed it was -- another blog.

Reality is, he linked to something insubstantial and made false claims about it. Either he was careless, gullible, dishonest, or some combination thereof. His continued denial after being called on (and resorting to name calling) is just stubborn, silly, and ignorant behavior.

That doesn't leave much motivation to check out the rest of his "science," does it.

He's doing what a lot of would be "researchers" do: step one, decide what your opinion is going to be (without benefit of thorough analysis), and step two, search Google for links that parrot your thus uninformed opinion. Adding lots of data to appear to be analytical doesn't change that beginning fallacy of bias vs. actual research.

When's the last time he changed his views because of new evidence? Because that's what science does. Anything else is just ego, and it's antithetical to learning. When you think you already know everything, the brain is off duty.

Science is a mode of discovery, not a vehicle for chest-beating and defensive attempts to prop up one's invented sense of superiority by way of compensation.

And that is entirely a fair assessment, at least by the history of his posts.


"He".

Who is "He"?

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/23/2014 6:40:19 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I have previously documented


Absolutely nothing.






(And then, of course, there's Thompson).

Who contstantly points out the ignorant,unsubstantiated,childish drivel in your posts.


"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge."

(Thompson is perpetually content).

< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 5/23/2014 6:52:09 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/24/2014 6:34:57 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Might be a good idea to correct him then.


I wouldn't.

He's, offering his opinion.

Not his fact.

(Everyone else here seems to believe they have facts).


Someone can offer their opinion that gravity doesn't exist but it's not like they'll float away any time soon.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/24/2014 1:53:36 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		(Thompson is perpetually content).

Because he is perpetually right, unlike the ignorant posters that he must continually disabuse of their ignorance.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a d... - 5/24/2014 6:17:58 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Might be a good idea to correct him then.


I wouldn't.

He's, offering his opinion.

Not his fact.

(Everyone else here seems to believe they have facts).


Someone can offer their opinion that gravity doesn't exist but it's not like they'll float away any time soon.


Well said.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: I guess since Climate Change is a myth, this is a dumb idea? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109