Global warming is nothing more than a scam

[alluseridsrejected]

I would implore you do your own research on Dr. Curry. Why would you latch on to her "work", citing group think, when she is literally involved in producing group think based on no evidence?

Why are you attacking her personally simply because you don't like what she says?

Why doesn't she do research and correct science, that is literally her job, so why not do it? No papers or research released.

The government only pays for research showing global warming. There is no grant money for researchers showing it is wrong.

Stated "Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature" yet she stubbornly/blindly/stupidly sticks by her story when she clearly misread/misinterpreted the "decline". The 'decline' (climategate) refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports for anybody to read. She's clearly wrong here. Here's the decline in red that she incorrectly confuses with the inverse phenomenon of tree rings. Of course, the other data all corroborates.

She never mentioned the phony discredited "hide the decline" graph in her video, so why are you bringing it up? You are just throwing a red herring instead of responding to what she said.

She understands perfectly well they were using tree rings and what they were doing with them. The tree ring data was being used to suggest they represented global temperatures. Only when the tree ring data disagreed with actual thermometer data we do have, MM still wanted to use the other data to support claims for global temperature for the dates before we had thermometer data. If tree ring data can't be validated against thermometers, then it can not be trusted a shouldn't have been used. But it was used anyway and swept under the rug (IE: Hide the decline)

SS is not a trustworthy site, they have been found guilty of deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting. ,one of the main posters there (Dana Nuccitelli) works for the oil industry. So why is that ok?

She repeatedly states "there is no consensus", but there is a consensus of 97% of scientists.

That makes here correct and you wrong.

Why did this scientist join the Koch Brothers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute and the National Review? The Heritage Foundation? Most of whom are involved directly with Big Oil? You don't see a conflict of interest there? The CEI still holds that second hand smoke is 100% not a problem for gosh sake.

Why is it ok for posters at SS to work for big oil and yet you still give the discredited site a pass? Why do you not respond to what she is testifying before congress and instead just resort to personal attacks?

Look, she can say whatever she wants or have doubts, but if you're going to stand by that then you get to produce 'why' you stand by that, for which she has not done in a concise or factual manner.

She was testifying before congress, why don't you point out specifically what she was lying about so you can proceed with charging her with purgery.

 

[phaZed]

I'm not attacking her personally, please point out where I did so. I'm pointing out her history and prior actions.

The government only pays for research showing global warming. There is no grant money for researchers showing it is wrong.

Prove it.

She never mentioned the phony discredited "hide the decline" graph in her video, so why are you bringing it up? You are just throwing a red herring instead of responding to what she said.

No, she didn't in the video, but it happens to be one of her long held statements that makes her a denialist. Look it up.

That makes here correct and you wrong.

No, sorry, consensus does not require 100% and if fact "consensus" is defined as a "General agreement" not "Total Agreement".

Why is it ok for posters at SS to work for big oil and yet you still give the discredited site a pass? Why do you not respond to what she is testifying before congress and instead just resort to personal attacks?

Prove it.
So why does Dana Nuccitelli's work largely include lambasting the oil companies and releasing damning articles of them coving up "knowledge of climate change" 33 years ago?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-the-tobacco-industry-guilty-of-racketeering
Prove he is working for the Oil industry.

She was testifying before congress, why don't you point out specifically what she was lying about so you can proceed with charging her with purgery.

I don't need to. If you find her convincing, well, that's on you. It's possible to tell of an untruth and not lie, BTW.

Judith Curry abandons science
But I’m glad the GOP chose her as a witness for a climate hearing
https://thinkprogress.org/judith-curry-abandons-science-e13059a66c99/

You don't honestly think that everyone in front of congress tells the truth, do you?

Her big thing in the video is "uncertainty" on how much 'effect' we are having or how much/what effect certain studies did or did not take into account. Well, it's no mystery, each such papers lists such things as uncertainty in a scientific way. Still waiting for Mrs. Curry to provide her reasoning against.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

I'm not attacking her personally, please point out where I did so. I'm pointing out her history and prior actions.

You attacked her with your comments insinuating she is on the take from big oil.

No, she didn't in the video

Right, so it was a red herring and therefore a logical fallacy.

Prove he is working for the Oil industry.

His linkedin profile : https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447/ says he is employeed at Tetra Tech June 2006-Present

Tetra Tech is this company:

http://www.tetratech.com/en/oil-and-gas

Her big thing in the video is "uncertainty" on how much 'effect' we are having or how much/what effect certain studies did or did not take into account.

yes, we agree that climate science has not been forth coming on uncertainty and attempts to discredit anyone challenging the "settled science".

 

[alluseridsrejected]

The consensus is a lie. According to a survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims. People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

 

[fincoder]

Apparently someone here over in our part of the globe got caught tampering with Weather Monitoring systems.

No, there was an erroneous reading from two weather stations when the temperature dropped lower than -10C. These two machines have been replaced. These stations are not part of the global climate monitoring statistics.
http://media.bom.gov.au/releases/374/bureau-of-meteorology-statement-on-temperature-observations/

 

[phaZed]

 

[fencepost]

Understand something folks, there's a big chunk of folks in the "denialist" camp whose opinions you are never going to change, because they simply don't believe the facts the rest of us are looking at. Some of them are probably in the same camp as folks who believe the moon landing was filmed in a sound stage or that the Earth is flat, but changing their beliefs would require that they admit either that they were mistaken or that they'd been lied to and they have too much mentally or emotionally invested in their current position to allow that change.

You pretty much just have to understand that these people are non-rational about some things and proceed from there.

Edit:
Oh, and if they get all ****** off because you're dismissing them as a crank, what do you care? You've lost the good opinion of a crank, but you already know that no matter what happens they won't change their opinion, therefore nothing you can do will make them think better of you, therefore any effort or mental energy wasted on them is wasted. They're the crazy uncles of the world.

 

[Galdorf]

climate change has been going on for millions of years before man has been around there has been mass extinctions 14000 years ago the climate is ever changing according to ice cores taken at poles now Antarctica is heating up like never seen before.
The earths equator has changed many times past millions of years as well as the continents deserts use to be lush oasis large areas use to be seas the climate will always be changing.
For example even hundreds of years ago during midevil era climate use to be much warmer then it started to cool as shown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

[fincoder]

Ocean surface temperatures around 125,000 years ago were comparable to those today... sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth’s-last-major-warm-period-was-hot-today

 

[unlimited82]

in place where live for 5 years the weather changes are big
don't forget this summer how much rain did damage

 

[TechLady]

Something I never see discussed in these kinds of threads: suppose it IS a lie (it absolutely isn't, but stay with me here)--what's the harm in cleaner air and water? Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Altster]

Something I never see discussed in these kinds of threads: suppose it IS a lie (it absolutely isn't, but stay with me here)--what's the harm in cleaner air and water? Why is that a bad thing?

It certainly is NOT a bad thing. That's for sure. It's just that some people have different meanings of this and how to go about it.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Something I never see discussed in these kinds of threads: suppose it IS a lie (it absolutely isn't, but stay with me here)--what's the harm in cleaner air and water? Why is that a bad thing?

Who is against clean air and water? CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and is not a component of smog, dirty air or water.

 

[fencepost]

There's a very significant element of "You can't tell me what to do!" accompanied by a feeling that whoever's pushing it must have some ulterior motive. There's also a tendency to take what's being told at face value without examining the implications.

Also, I can't help but feel that there's some massive intellectual dishonesty going on. A bunch of the prominent folks pushing back against "liberals trying to take away your cars and guns!" almost certainly don't believe the crap they're spewing, but that doesn't matter as long as their audience keeps swallowing it and supporting them. Another relevant thing (as a historical reference) would be "tent revivals," particularly with faith healing. I'm sure that some of the traveling preachers, etc. were quite earnest and honest - and I'm absolutely positive that some of them were "showmen" bringing a low-budget traveling show to town under the guise of religion.

In terms of taking things at face value, people don't look deeper - the ACA is an easy one, the people who hate "Obamacare" feel much happier about the ACA, and if you ask them about the individual provisions of it (no preexisting conditions, staying on parents' coverage to 26, etc.) they're almost all well-liked. Trump's "millions of fraudulent votes" is a more amusing one - if you do the basic math, that means that even if Kansas only got half of the expected rate of fraudulent votes they'd have had tens of thousands of those voters. Kansas isn't that populous a state, why hasn't Kris Kobach managed to find and prosecute any of those? Incompetence or fraud (they didn't exist)?

edit: I guess you could say "I don't want my children or grandchildren to be climate change refugees" would be an ulterior motive.

 

[neon9]

maybe

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Science now knows CO2 is greening the planet:

This was predicted decades ago by Freeman Dyson (one of those against draconian action on CO2 emissions).

Personally I am against most proposed actions because they are misguided and I am concerned about my children/grandchildren and future generations.

 

[fencepost]

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

Edited later during lunch:

To the Dyson point, there are some other factors he doesn't mention, like droughts (the Amazon has had 3 "once in a hundred years" droughts in the past 12 years so clearly either someone's seriously miscalculated or something's changed), habitability (despite Dubai, you can't actually air condition an entire state) and weather (warmer = holds more moisture & energy = stronger storms). It's not like Texas has a recent history of floods or hot weather.

And it's not like we're going to get smarter and have better options for thinking up solutions as CO2 levels get higher: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/ . We're a long way from the numbers they were testing there (that study was testing indoor air quality and their baseline was 500ppm), but if we hit a uniform 500ppm in the atmosphere you're not going to have lower CO2 indoors.

To paraphrase what I've heard elsewhere about where we're headed: "It's not a bad planet, but it's also not a planet with the conditions we evolved for."

Oh, and algae blooms are green as well. Not sure that's what we should be hoping for.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

I get it, when it is cooler and the weather is mild where I live, that is just regional and just weather but when there is a drought in the Amazon or a flood in Texas, that is global climate change.

 

[fencepost]

No, weather is not climate change. Weather is influenced by climate change.

Think of it like a big bass speaker (this is not an exact analogy, and is really only based on amplitude not frequency). Weather is individual points on how far in or out the cone is at an individual moment, climate change is where the average of all of those individual positions is - when the speaker is powered but not playing anything, the cone is at a particular position base on its construction and the current flow. Climate change is putting a bit more energy into things. The default position of the cone changes a little bit, but the problem is at the extremes - higher peaks, lower valleys, maybe some distortion, more stress on the materials. Continuing the analogy, that gives you more extreme weather events, both hot and cold (e.g. the incredible cold in some places this past winter) because weather is a point in time. Is that hot spell due to climate change? Maybe, or it might just be a high point in the "music."

The other thing that has a bunch of people concerned is where "materials" start to break, where some possible breakages include Arctic warming due to a much reduced ice cap in summer (dark water absorbs more sunlight, warms up, doesn't spend as much time freezing into new ice the next winter), melting permafrost releasing methane or allowing peat fires, methane clathrates melting, etc. Much like a torn speaker cone, once serious deterioration in the cone it gets a lot harder to do repairs and mitigation because you're in the situation of trying to do things while it's still moving and possibly being damaged further.

Anyway, no, a single hot (or cool) year is not climate change. A chain of 16 of the 17 warmest years on record being since 2001 on the other hand is a pretty good indicator of climate change. And for an article with a little more coverage and detail than I'm going to track down, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...-snowball-chance-in-hell-that-it-was-natural/

 

[TechLady]

Serious question: what would change in your life if you accepted that global warming is real?