Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 198
Thanks Tree108Thanks

Thread: World Shatters Heat Records in 2016

  1. #21
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    34,880
    Thanks
    36958

    From
    Nashville, TN
    By God, Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggert never had to worry about no stinking EPA!

  2. #22
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63,149
    Thanks
    43437

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    It's written as gobbldey**** because the conclusions are so weak. Your respect for nonsense is unwarranted. Making them seem incomprehensible is part of the method.

    You can't have science without a baseline, so what is the baseline?

    1) Here's the baseline

    2) Here's what would have occurred if we had not had an industrial revolution.

    3) Here's what we have.

    4) Here is the difference. That's the part the industrial revolution is responsible for.

    This very simple, logical method is not apparent in this piece.

    If you think not, please show us.

    The giant headline is a dead giveaway. The horribly written explanation is a cover-up of the no science conclusion.

    The "You didn't build that" crowd is being ushered out of town for semantic butchery.

    Give it up.
    Oh, bullshit! Even if scientists did things the kmiller way instead of, you know, employing the scientific method, you say, "They can't know what would have happened without the Industrial Revolution." You're insisting they do something less reliable by a magnitude of 1000 than the scientific method they've employed.

  3. #23
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63,149
    Thanks
    43437

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    You will notice they never respond to the need for a simple baseline. The typical response is.....

    1) You are too stupid to understand

    2) The Consensus understands. Bend to its wisdom.

    How about giving me a baseline and showing me how AGW has changed the baseline?

    This is something we can understand.

    Which is why we will never get it (because they don't have one).

    Examine 20,000 years before now to now. The natural cycle has, on average, been going straight up for
    the entire time. The industrial revolution occurred less than 200 years ago. it occurred in the context of a natural increase.

    So the obvious question is how do we separate the natural increase from the changes imposed
    by AGW?

    And anyone who can't see that natural increase is plainly blind.

    Attachment 13454
    Their GWPF-article continues with ten points of which they claim they rebut climate science. This is not true, and actually the ten points are often the opposite of what the very same people said elsewhere. yes you read it right: they themselves have rebutted several of the ten points of 'evidence' they present.


    Check this out:

    1. The climate has always changed. This was true during ancient times and it has also been true since the beginning of the modern era. These climate changes have always been, and still are, independent of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere;

    A rather strange point if you ask me, as nobody claims it never changed. And an incorrect one. There are several reasons why climate can change (Milankovic cycles p.ex.), but CO2 always has been one of the components influencing earth's temperature. Of course it has, physical laws have been the same back then as.

    The Vostok ice-cores clearly show that, contrary to what they write, in the past there *has* been a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    Actually, in the same text, they do refer to this Vostok-core. So they are aware themselves there's a correlation between CO2 and earth's climate. So their 10 points aren't very consistent...
    In English: ”CO2 is considered to be one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect and it's absolute necessary to reduce the atmospheric concentrations of CO2".

    In other words: Marko himself disagrees with the GWPF-text he signed.

    2. During Roman times and the Middle Ages temperatures were observed well in excess of those currently experienced. From the 16th till the 19th century a cold period referred to as the “Little Ice Age” predominated. All these changes took place without mankind being held responsible. We believe that the increase in temperatures that occurred during a certain part of the 20th century is the result of a recovery from this cold period. These various events can be explained by a combination of warm and cold cycles of different magnitudes and duration. Why and how this happens is not yet fully understood, but some plausible explanations can be put forward;

    This a non sequitur. A non-influence in the past, doesn't automatically mean present day climate cannot be influenced by mankind.

    A nice analogy is the forest-fire one: even though this kind of fires occurs naturally, this does not imply a pyromaniac cannot burn down a forest.

    Earth's atmosphere contained no free oxygen during the first billion years or so. Free oxygen only emerged in the atmosphere as a *result* of ....life on earth ! That's how dramatic the influence of life can be on our planet's atmosphere.
    Jules' klimaatblog: Belgian climate pseudo skeptics address ten issues, score zero goals. Or how to disagree with yourself !

    You really should read the whole post offered at the link. It explains it all to you.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  4. #24
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    25,239
    Thanks
    20963

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    how long have they been keeping the records. 150 years..

    150 out of 4,000,000,000 +
    And yet......and yet.....TNVolunteer FREQUENTLY regales us with his interesting graph of climate cycles going back 400 THOUSAND YEARS!!!, from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    How on EARTH did they figure all that out, since 'weather records only go back 150 years'?!?!????

    The massive cognitive dissonance SHOULD cause TNVolunteer's head to simply EXPLODE, and would, if there was any cognition there to begin with.
    Thanks from Babba and RNG

  5. #25
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    25,239
    Thanks
    20963

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    You are going to have to expand on that one. Where are laws of thermo being violated, and who are you claiming is advocating something that does?
    Creationists have FREQUENTLY claimed that evolution somehow violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Looks like the climate change denialists have picked up that little 'trick' from their creationist friends and buddies. Heck, they might even be the same people.....
    Thanks from tnbskts

  6. #26
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    25,239
    Thanks
    20963

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    They were worried about global cooling in the 70's. Then they switched to global warming. Now they can't even say that, say they went to climate change.

    It's just one more excuse to dictate how we live our lives.

    Tell me, if Africa ever starts developing like China do you think they are going to give a rat's ass about the size of their carbon footprint? No.

    Half of emissions are from heating and electricity and agriculture/ land use. You know, like the essentials to living in a civilized society.
    I'm sorry, but what a STUPID post. For one thing, who is 'they'?? They were a TINY group of FRINGE scientists in the 1970's who thought the world was headed for another Ice Age, and they managed to get their ruminations printed up in such 'scientific' publications as Time and Newsweek. There was NO scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1970's, in STARK and SHARP contrast to the scientific consensus that exists today.

    And, my GOD, it's as if you are BLISSFULLY unaware that we have FAR more powerful computers today than we did in, say, 1974, when that global cooling FAD was making the rounds.

    Astonishing. Have you ever even HEARD of computers???? Aren't you using one, RIGHT NOW??????
    Thanks from Babba

  7. #27
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    25,239
    Thanks
    20963

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    So the obvious question is how do we separate the natural increase from the changes imposed
    by AGW?
    And your obvious question has an obvious answer: We search for anthropogenic signatures of climate change, to detect the SIGNAL of human influence on the climate amidst the NOISE of natural climate change. And this, OF COURSE, has been done, and such signatures HAVE been found, LONG AGO. And you've been LECTURED on those anthropogenic signatures of climate change DOZENS of times, right here on PH, and you have CHOSEN to simply IGNORE that evidence.

    Mayhaps you're seriously confused about this, kmiller, but you DON'T get to simply IGNORE evidence in science, just because you don't happen to like it. Not the way science works, buddy. Simply ain't.
    Thanks from Babba

  8. #28
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,179
    Thanks
    3576

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    And your obvious question has an obvious answer: We search for anthropogenic signatures of climate change, to detect the SIGNAL of human influence on the climate amidst the NOISE of natural climate change. And this, OF COURSE, has been done, and such signatures HAVE been found, LONG AGO. And you've been LECTURED on those anthropogenic signatures of climate change DOZENS of times, right here on PH, and you have CHOSEN to simply IGNORE that evidence.

    Mayhaps you're seriously confused about this, kmiller, but you DON'T get to simply IGNORE evidence in science, just because you don't happen to like it. Not the way science works, buddy. Simply ain't.
    And yet you choose to ignore the Science of propaganda, which I have studied in depth. Both you and Babba just adore techno babble and you bow at the altar of fake science. I am told I am ignorant and to just read the link. Same dance. If you are working with a complex system of knowledge and you want to explain it to the public, you don't try to scare people before you inform them. That's what makes the OP article propaganda rather than Science. Scare people, then throw the techno babble at them and make them feel intimidated. My questions are both scientific and logical and yet nobody presents answers the way I want them answered. So who crosses the river to the other side's place? I say that the Scientists who has the answers needs to visit the layman's side and not the other way around. And my questions are valid.

    Why isn't the natural trend line presented first?

    Why isn't the natural trend line with AGW removed presented so that the public can see where we would be without AGW?

    This is simple communication 101 and the most logical way to present the information.

    My interpretation is that the propagandists are running the show.

    My one reading of an IPCC report started with the threat summary (scare em) and natural variability wasn't mentioned until page 17.

    That's propaganda.

  9. #29
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    25,239
    Thanks
    20963

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    And yet you choose to ignore the Science of propaganda, which I have studied in depth. Both you and Babba just adore techno babble and you bow at the altar of fake science. I am told I am ignorant and to just read the link. Same dance. If you are working with a complex system of knowledge and you want to explain it to the public, you don't try to scare people before you inform them. That's what makes the OP article propaganda rather than Science. Scare people, then throw the techno babble at them and make them feel intimidated. My questions are both scientific and logical and yet nobody presents answers the way I want them answered. So who crosses the river to the other side's place? I say that the Scientists who has the answers needs to visit the layman's side and not the other way around. And my questions are valid.

    Why isn't the natural trend line presented first?

    Why isn't the natural trend line with AGW removed presented so that the public can see where we would be without AGW?

    This is simple communication 101 and the most logical way to present the information.

    My interpretation is that the propagandists are running the show.

    My one reading of an IPCC report started with the threat summary (scare em) and natural variability wasn't mentioned until page 17.

    That's propaganda.
    I have challenged you, REPEATEDLY, to explain WHY the stratosphere is cooling even while the trophosphere warms.

    Shamefully, you HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED.

    You DON'T get to ignore the FACT that the stratosphere is cooling, sorry.

    Again: What is YOUR explanation of that FACT?

    The ESSENCE of a scientific worldview is simply this: FACTS DEMAND EXPLANATIONS.

    I am DEMANDING an explanation, kmiller.

    Are you going to DODGE the challenge, yet again?????

  10. #30
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63,149
    Thanks
    43437

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    And yet you choose to ignore the Science of propaganda, which I have studied in depth. Both you and Babba just adore techno babble and you bow at the altar of fake science. I am told I am ignorant and to just read the link. Same dance. If you are working with a complex system of knowledge and you want to explain it to the public, you don't try to scare people before you inform them. That's what makes the OP article propaganda rather than Science. Scare people, then throw the techno babble at them and make them feel intimidated. My questions are both scientific and logical and yet nobody presents answers the way I want them answered. So who crosses the river to the other side's place? I say that the Scientists who has the answers needs to visit the layman's side and not the other way around. And my questions are valid.

    Why isn't the natural trend line presented first?

    Why isn't the natural trend line with AGW removed presented so that the public can see where we would be without AGW?

    This is simple communication 101 and the most logical way to present the information.

    My interpretation is that the propagandists are running the show.

    My one reading of an IPCC report started with the threat summary (scare em) and natural variability wasn't mentioned until page 17.

    That's propaganda.
    Have you considered that the way you want your questions answered is not based on scientific method? Who are you to demand the world's scientists conform to your non-scientific methods?

    Essentially, scientists are speculating on what would have occurred without the Industrial Revolution by stating that pollution and misuse of land since the Industrial Revolution is causing dramatic global climate change.

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump shatters GOP records with small donors
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19th September 2016, 01:38 PM
  2. Why the World Will End Surely on 29 July 2016 ? Shocking Facts
    By DemoWhip in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 1st August 2016, 11:37 AM
  3. Will 2016 be the year the Muslim world makes contact?
    By sam I am in forum World Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st January 2016, 03:31 PM
  4. Replies: 79
    Last Post: 17th February 2013, 10:07 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15th February 2013, 05:12 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed