Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101617181920212223 LastLast
Results 1,901 to 2,000 of 2270

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1901

    Default

    MIAMI'S LITTLE HAITI WASN'T A TARGET FOR DEVELOPERS. UNTIL THE SEAS STARTED TO RISE.


    In the age of rising sea levels, elevation is everything. CNN's Bill Weir explores how climate gentrification affects working class communities.


    In a city where "sunny day floods" increased 400% in a decade, rising seas are changing the old real estate mantra of "location, location, location."


    In Miami these days, it's all about "elevation, elevation, elevation."


    And long before melted ice caps wash over Ocean Drive, one of America's most vulnerable big cities is becoming a test case for the modern problem of climate gentrification.


    While some scientific models predict enough polar ice melt to bring at least 10 feet of sea level rise to South Florida by 2100, just a modest 12 inches would make 15% of Miami uninhabitable, and much of that beachside property is among America's most valuable.

    What's happening in Little Haiti could be just one example of a "climate apartheid" that the United Nations warns is ahead, where there will be a gulf between the rich who can protect themselves from the impact of climate change and the poor who are left behind. Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said there was already evidence of how the climate crisis affects the rich and poor differently.
    https://www.wthitv.com/content/natio...2.html?ref=532
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #1902
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Sure glad how those man made charts lol explained why that plane has 300 feet of ice on top of it last 70 years , how dumb of me to believe my lying eyes , I fail bad as a zombie . And all the seas rising we will never see islands appear anymore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OITzReDY4J4 Never doubt anyone in lab coat, only your eyes lie. The climate man bear pig will be proven with many charts just don't hold your breath about actual underwater cities.
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 12-07-2019 at 10:01 PM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  3. #1903
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    I can also see why all those insurance companies refuse to insure any land or structure on costal cities around the world because of their inevitable destruction from melting ice ....... oh wait they do insure it all Oh the banks then must have a out clause on all the mortgages they give on those ocean properties ... oh wait they don't lol
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  4. #1904

    Default The TRUTH about beachfront property.

    "much of that beachside property is among America's most valuable."

    Yes, climate change might cause a millionaire with beachfront property to have a flooded basement.

    Climate change arguments read like a comic book.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #1905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    my problem with this one isn't the accuracy of the information but the credibility of the presentation.

    it "looks like" a hockey stick but that's only because it truncates/omits 64% of the left y axis (i.e. everything between 0 and 250).

    its hard to say how much of the right y axis is truncated not knowing whether the intent is to present everything above 0 or to include the full celsius scale starting at -273.15 or only that portion of the scale that presumptively supports life as we know it or even life as it could be or???

    ps. lengthening -!or shortening - the x axis will also have a big impact on the perception of the same information.
    You're right. The graphs should start at the formation of the Earth on the time axis and be listed in degrees Kelvin, starting at absolute zero for temperature. Put everything into perspective.

  6. #1906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    my problem with this one isn't the accuracy of the information but the credibility of the presentation.

    it "looks like" a hockey stick but that's only because it truncates/omits 64% of the left y axis (i.e. everything between 0 and 250).

    its hard to say how much of the right y axis is truncated not knowing whether the intent is to present everything above 0 or to include the full celsius scale starting at -273.15 or only that portion of the scale that presumptively supports life as we know it or even life as it could be or???

    ps. lengthening -!or shortening - the x axis will also have a big impact on the perception of the same information.
    You're right. The graphs should start at the formation of the Earth on the time axis and be listed in degrees Kelvin, starting at absolute zero for temperature. Put everything into perspective.
    My problem with the graph is that it's fake. What's the source? Anonymous. What's the data? GISS? No. Satellite? No. It's a made-up graph by an unknown author and an unknown source. Climate advocates dance with joy when fake graphs show them what they want. The fake science machine is in full production for them.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #1907
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    my problem with this one isn't the accuracy of the information but the credibility of the presentation.

    it "looks like" a hockey stick but that's only because it truncates/omits 64% of the left y axis (i.e. everything between 0 and 250).

    its hard to say how much of the right y axis is truncated not knowing whether the intent is to present everything above 0 or to include the full celsius scale starting at -273.15 or only that portion of the scale that presumptively supports life as we know it or even life as it could be or???

    ps. lengthening -!or shortening - the x axis will also have a big impact on the perception of the same information.
    You're right. The graphs should start at the formation of the Earth on the time axis and be listed in degrees Kelvin, starting at absolute zero for temperature. Put everything into perspective.
    see post 1852 (and the rest of the chain)....
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #1908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    my problem with this one isn't the accuracy of the information but the credibility of the presentation.

    it "looks like" a hockey stick but that's only because it truncates/omits 64% of the left y axis (i.e. everything between 0 and 250).

    its hard to say how much of the right y axis is truncated not knowing whether the intent is to present everything above 0 or to include the full celsius scale starting at -273.15 or only that portion of the scale that presumptively supports life as we know it or even life as it could be or???

    ps. lengthening -!or shortening - the x axis will also have a big impact on the perception of the same information.
    You're right. The graphs should start at the formation of the Earth on the time axis and be listed in degrees Kelvin, starting at absolute zero for temperature. Put everything into perspective.
    My problem with the graph is that it's fake. What's the source? Anonymous. What's the data? GISS? No. Satellite? No. It's a made-up graph by an unknown author and an unknown source. Climate advocates dance with joy when fake graphs show them what they want. The fake science machine is in full production for them.

    Hey

    I know your really trying here, but my graphs are all backed data and studies that are and have been peer reviewed by climate scientists. Most of the stuff you post is from some guy (probably much like yourself) who doesnt have any background in climate studies and just some random blogger in his (or his moms) basement and certainly not peer reviewed. The sources are all above in my posts, but your too chickenshiit to respond to them, and only want to respond to memes and very select data points.
    Last edited by Medwards; 14-07-2019 at 08:43 AM.

  9. #1909

    Default The TRUTH. 40 years of sea level rise.........

    and we're all gonna die.

    Except, here's a new island that popped up out of the rising sea. Intellectual property stolen from a Drumbones post.......

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #1910

    Default

    You don't understand even the most basic natural processes. In the same way as it has been pointed out that you confuse weather with climate; you confuse a sandbar beach with the oceans receding.

    Beaches and sandbars can disappear in a storm overnight and reappear during the next storm.

    Here is a news flash, winds, waves and currents, move sand!

    Your post proves you stand firmly on sinking sand.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #1911

    Default The TRUTH.... about hurricanes....... again.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. See here that the CBC and the media is constantly lying to you. Send them an e-mail and ask them why.

    "GLOBAL WARMING AND ATLANTIC HURRICANES"

    "B. Analysis of century-scale Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane records"

    "Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero"

    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/

    The lying CBC says..........

    "Reported economic losses from earthquakes and*volcanic eruptions, as well as climate-related disasters such as floods and hurricanes*have totalled*nearly $2.9 trillion US over the past two decades, the UN*office for disaster risk reduction says."

    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4856708
    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-07-2019 at 11:24 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  12. #1912

    Default

    Thanks for ignoring my post
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #1913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Thanks for ignoring my post
    I can't take you guys too seriously. You post fake, and cartoon graphs and jump for joy at the "evidence" they present. Always posting links to liar blogs too. You fall on your knees and praise liar blogs for saying what you want to hear.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-07-2019 at 11:17 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  14. #1914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Thanks for ignoring my post
    He has ignored 90% of whats posted here and always swings at the low hanging fruit without ever putting up much for a rebuttal outside of ‘liar blogs’ and other tinfoil hat conspiracy accusations... no surprise he again skipped your post.

  15. #1915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Thanks for ignoring my post
    I can't take you guys too seriously. You post fake, and cartoon graphs and jump for joy at the "evidence" they present. Always posting links to liar blogs too. You fall on your knees and praise liar blogs for saying what you want to hear.
    Yes NASA and NOAA are fake cartoon graphs and liar blogs


    good lord

  16. #1916

    Default

    Funny, I did not post any NASA data or cartoon hockey stick chart or liar blogs and then he claims I did.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #1917
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    and we're all gonna die.

    Except, here's a new island that popped up out of the rising sea. Intellectual property stolen from a Drumbones post.......

    Hey guys, the sea levels can't be rising, the Himalayas are 1 cm higher than they were last year!

    ...Does that sound ridiculous to you? Because it shouldn't, seeing as how it uses the exact same logical jump that you used in this post.

    Have your really jumped to arguing that the sea isn't rising? It's pretty much the easiest indicator to prove/disprove. Let's see your data source that shows that it isn't happening.

  18. #1918

    Default The TRUTH........., about wildfires........, again

    Anybody getting tired of the CBC lying to you? Why not send them an e-mail and ask them why they keep lying?
    Ask them if climate change is causing wildfires, why are they on the decline?

    From the Canadian National Fire Database......
    https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb

    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-07-2019 at 09:44 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  19. #1919

    Default

    MrCombust, I've tried asking you why you keep on posting lies and fake news and misinformation, but you never respond. The CBC is pretty factual and uses data that's peer reviewed by other peers in the field, unlike you, who takes stuff from tinfoil hat wearing bloggers with no credentials in this field, and you, who can't differentiate between weather and climate.

  20. #1920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Anybody getting tired of the CBC lying to you? Why not send them an e-mail and ask the why they keep lying?
    Ask them if climate change is causing wildfires, why are they on the decline?

    From the Canadian National Fire Database......
    https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb

    I really don't understand your post. You claim that CBC is lying but post a government of Canada chart on forest fires.

    The number and size of forest fires are not directly correlated, everyone knows that.



    The majority of forest fires are started by humans. The number of forest fires started and control measures are dependent on public education, forest management, government forest fire fighting budgets, geographic location of fires and the value of the timber and threat to populated areas

    They are affected by weather, climate change, infestation and a host of other effects. Your posted chart posts only the effects but does not indicate the cause.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #1921

    Default The TRUTH. From the American Meterological Society.........

    A new paper from the AMS admits climate warming feedbacks are unknown variables. And why not? That's what they are. Climate models are full of unknown variables. Pretending they can predict the outcome of a chaotic system 50 years in the future is preposterous. But even the AMS "plays along" because the climate movement is powerful and threatening.

    From the AMS.........

    "Attributing Historical and Future Evolution of Radiative Feedbacks to Regional Warming Patterns using a Green’s Function Approach: The Preeminence of the Western Pacific"

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...LI-D-18-0843.1

    "future evolution" means the current feedbacks are incorrect. But the AMS does what the climate movement does. They assume predicted global warming is inevitable, and it's just a matter of time before the "science" actually proves it. But of course climate models don't work now, and thinking they'll ever work is preposterous. Even the AMS doesn't dare state these facts plainly.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #1922

    Default The TRUTH. The climate models have been wrong for two decades......

    But of course they've been corrected so we can rely on them now............

    Published in Nature............

    "*This stark discrepancy between models and observations has troubled the climate research community for two decades.*"

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #1923

    Default The TRUTH. Climate change! Unprecedented sea level rise!

    "Dig uncovers Roman invasion coast

    The medieval dock was found next to a fallen Roman wall

    An archaeological dig at a Kent fort has uncovered the coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD - two miles from today's shore."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...nt/7648033.stm
    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-07-2019 at 11:04 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  24. #1924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    But of course they've been corrected so we can rely on them now............

    Published in Nature............

    "*This stark discrepancy between models and observations has troubled the climate research community for two decades.*"

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x
    And yet you repeatedly call them unscientific. All the while the inherent moronic nature of the anti-climate change advocates bothers you not. Doesn’t that stark discrepancy trouble your own mind?

  25. #1925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    A new paper from the AMS admits climate warming feedbacks are unknown variables. And why not? That's what they are. Climate models are full of unknown variables. Pretending they can predict the outcome of a chaotic system 50 years in the future is preposterous. But even the AMS "plays along" because the climate movement is powerful and threatening.

    From the AMS.........

    "Attributing Historical and Future Evolution of Radiative Feedbacks to Regional Warming Patterns using a Green’s Function Approach: The Preeminence of the Western Pacific"

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...LI-D-18-0843.1

    "future evolution" means the current feedbacks are incorrect. But the AMS does what the climate movement does. They assume predicted global warming is inevitable, and it's just a matter of time before the "science" actually proves it. But of course climate models don't work now, and thinking they'll ever work is preposterous. Even the AMS doesn't dare state these facts plainly.
    “admits”

    Hahaha!

    Warning - Spin doctor twirling.

  26. #1926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    A new paper from the AMS admits climate warming feedbacks are unknown variables. And why not? That's what they are. Climate models are full of unknown variables. Pretending they can predict the outcome of a chaotic system 50 years in the future is preposterous. But even the AMS "plays along" because the climate movement is powerful and threatening.

    From the AMS.........

    "Attributing Historical and Future Evolution of Radiative Feedbacks to Regional Warming Patterns using a Green’s Function Approach: The Preeminence of the Western Pacific"

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...LI-D-18-0843.1

    "future evolution" means the current feedbacks are incorrect. But the AMS does what the climate movement does. They assume predicted global warming is inevitable, and it's just a matter of time before the "science" actually proves it. But of course climate models don't work now, and thinking they'll ever work is preposterous. Even the AMS doesn't dare state these facts plainly.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    But of course they've been corrected so we can rely on them now............

    Published in Nature............

    "*This stark discrepancy between models and observations has troubled the climate research community for two decades.*"

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x
    Once again you have spectacularly misunderstood what these papers actually mean.

  27. #1927

    Default The TRUTH...... about heat waves

    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta....... we currently have a large high pressure system bringing our first big heat wave of the year. This is the time the climate change nonsense ramps up. Often linking heat waves with death. Far more Canadians die in winter than in summer.

    But let's look at the science about heat waves, and the usual climate change fraud............

    Tony Heller is a climate skeptic but he provides sources for most of the data he presents.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 23-07-2019 at 08:50 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  28. #1928

    Default

    Yes, and in the middle of a cold spell in winter, all the climate change skeptics try to use it as proof global warming isn't happening.

    the TRUTH is that the climate is warming and CO2 emissions generated by human activity is the cause.... There's nothing left to really debate. The consensus agrees with the data.

    Are you trying to claim that heat waves don't cause deaths?

    It's really telling that you are not from Edmonton or Alberta, and possibly not even Canada... as you would be using our local weather as a (failed) example of the globe not warming. It's been very below seasonal for most of June and July, and very rainy here...

    But you're just a misinformation spreader from far beyond Alberta.

  29. #1929
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,230

    Default

    ^^

    "Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta", welcome to the next act in the great debate against scientific reason...

    it's as if even you know most of what you're doing here is on the same level as a thee ring circus and not serious discussion.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  30. #1930

    Default

    ^^^more Tony Heller? Are you Tony Heller? You sure post a lot of his stuff.

  31. #1931

    Default The TRUTH. Astonishing new level of fraud

    NASA is now fudging the raw data of weather stations before they fudge the data from the weather stations to create thier GISS temperature record.

    New versions of "raw" data are being created.

    NCDC's "unadjusted" data can be found here. On the page where they discuss the various adjustments and versions of "raw" data. Hilarious.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...thly-version-3

    Remember Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta, all the record highs NASA reports is fudged data, not actual readings. You can dispute the validity of the data fudging, but you cannot dispute that they're fudging the data. All the historical data is available online.

    NASA's GISS cannot be taken seriously anymore and is now just another propaganda tool for global warming and big budget approval. The media will not report the lies so the public remains unaware of the lies they're being told.

    Why not send the CBC an e-mail and ask them to report on this? They are complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 23-07-2019 at 09:53 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  32. #1932

    Default

    Citation please?

  33. #1933
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,230

    Default

    ^^

    and moving back to ring number two for a repeat performance is another of our perennial favourites. please
    give a warm welcome round of applause for "data fudging" while "liar blog accusations" continues their warm-up before retaking the stage in ring number one.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  34. #1934

    Default The TRUTH. Yes, the circus is in town.

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^^

    and moving back to ring number two for a repeat performance is another of our perennial favourites. please
    give a warm welcome round of applause for "data fudging" while "liar blog accusations" continues their warm-up before retaking the stage in ring number one.
    And the public is amazed. Data disappears, and reappears with a different trend. The crowd is amazed. Normal weather is an omen we're all going to die. Old ladies faint in thier seats. The fortune teller knows what will happen in the future. The crowd is pleased and lines up at the booth with handfuls of money. The monkey steals your wallet as you watch the spectacle. Everybody is pleased and all go home, wallets emptied. But everybody enjoyed the show, and many wish the circus to be here all year long.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  35. #1935

    Default

    MrCombust = MrOilers
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #1936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    MrCombust = MrOilers
    The only thing that's really similar is the Mr and that both dabble in fake news/misinformation/skeptical/unverified news sources. The posting styles are completely different in choice of lexicon

  37. #1937
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^^

    and moving back to ring number two for a repeat performance is another of our perennial favourites. please
    give a warm welcome round of applause for "data fudging" while "liar blog accusations" continues their warm-up before retaking the stage in ring number one.
    And the public is amazed. Data disappears, and reappears with a different trend. The crowd is amazed. Normal weather is an omen we're all going to die. Old ladies faint in thier seats. The fortune teller knows what will happen in the future. The crowd is pleased and lines up at the booth with handfuls of money. The monkey steals your wallet as you watch the spectacle. Everybody is pleased and all go home, wallets emptied. But everybody enjoyed the show, and many wish the circus to be here all year long.
    nicely done.

    as [in]accurate as most of the rest of your posts but considerably more entertaining and amusing.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  38. #1938

    Default The TRUTH..... about the ridiculous CBC

    Today, the hottest day of the year, the CBC wants to know how you're taking advantage of the beautiful weather.

    In between the hilarious doomsday predictions that we're all gonna die of global warming, the CBC is taking a break and asking us about reality.

    Even the CBC doesn't reaĺly believe the relentless lies they tell us day after day.

    Isn't this hot day an omen we're all going to die? What's so great about that?

    Only 11.5 years to save the planet now.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  39. #1939
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Today, the hottest day of the year, the CBC wants to know how you're taking advantage of the beautiful weather.

    In between the hilarious doomsday predictions that we're all gonna die of global warming, the CBC is taking a break and asking us about reality.

    Even the CBC doesn't reaĺly believe the relentless lies they tell us day after day.

    Isn't this hot day an omen we're all going to die? What's so great about that?

    Only 11.5 years to save the planet now.
    i see it didn't take long to move from humour back to recalcitrance featuring an unwillingness even to acknowledge the difference between climate and weather.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  40. #1940

    Default

    This is the equivalent of a group of people finally standing up and debating with the doomsday guy who yells at everyone on Whyte ave that they're sinners.

    Longest Troll-job ever.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  41. #1941
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Except it's sadly a relatively mainstream belief in Canada, so it actually has the potential to cause damage. Only 66% of Canadians believe in human caused climate change, and only 35% of Conservative voters. that can have huge implications on policy and political decisions.

    https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11...limate-change/

  42. #1942

    Default

    The truth is that there is strong evidence of more warming in more places all happening right now than at any other point in the last 2000 years. The evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period pale in comparison.

    No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
    Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2


  43. #1943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    The truth is that there is strong evidence of more warming in more places all happening right now than at any other point in the last 2000 years. The evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period pale in comparison.

    No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
    Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

    Proxies are no match for modern instrument data. It's bad science to compare a software simulation using 2,000 year old tree rings to modern digital thermometers.

    Many papers indicate a Medieval warm period. Climate scientists still trying to erase it with software simulations, tricky science, tricky words, and innuendo.

    Greenland ice cores show a cooling trend over the last 3,000 years, so even if true, it's deceptive, and it doesn't mean much.

    CO2 been rising for 7,000 years while the earth cools.



    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-07-2019 at 04:12 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  44. #1944
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    strange how that last graph excludes the part where CO2 jumps from around 280 ppm to over 400 in 50 years. Would look pretty jarring, and certainly doesn't match the modest increase of ~20ppm over the last 7000 years.

  45. #1945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    strange how that last graph excludes the part where CO2 jumps from around 280 ppm to over 400 in 50 years. Would look pretty jarring, and certainly doesn't match the modest increase of ~20ppm over the last 7000 years.
    It's only strange if you don't understand science. The CO2 graph is based on ice core data. It does not do modern readings. And there's nothing jarring about a few hundred parts per million if you know CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Only blocking infra-red bands already being blocked by water vapour.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #1946

    Default

    MrCombust clearly demonstrates that he hasn't read anything anyone on here is posting.

  47. #1947

    Default

    It's funny how peer-reviewed studies utilising multiple models & varied statistical methods are "bad science" because the peers are all part of the sooper sekrit climate cabal & just pushing that "Big Climate" agenda.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #1948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    strange how that last graph excludes the part where CO2 jumps from around 280 ppm to over 400 in 50 years. Would look pretty jarring, and certainly doesn't match the modest increase of ~20ppm over the last 7000 years.
    It's only strange if you don't understand science. The CO2 graph is based on ice core data. It does not do modern readings. And there's nothing jarring about a few hundred parts per million if you know CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Only blocking infra-red bands already being blocked by water vapour.
    Well, using your own argumentative style, this data must be totally useless because it doesn’t even include the modern era of human activities. Why did you even post such lying blog data?

  49. #1949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's funny how peer-reviewed studies utilising multiple models & varied statistical methods are "bad science" because the peers are all part of the sooper sekrit climate cabal & just pushing that "Big Climate" agenda.
    It's not funny at all, but it is well documented. Peer review doesn't mean much in climate science. And there's a major problem with peer review in many areas. I guess you haven't heard about that.

    How do you verify software simulations when the code isn't released? Programmers produce any trend they want. So much science, so much money, so little proof. It's not science when you have ro take thier word for it.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-07-2019 at 06:23 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  50. #1950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's funny how peer-reviewed studies utilising multiple models & varied statistical methods are "bad science" because the peers are all part of the sooper sekrit climate cabal & just pushing that "Big Climate" agenda.
    It's not funny at all, but it is well documented. Peer review doesn't mean much in climate science. And there's a major problem with peer review in many areas. I guess you haven't heard about that.

    How do you verify software simulations when the code isn't released? Programmers produce any trend they want. So much science, so much money, so little proof. It's not science when you have ro take thier word for it.
    The source code is released, along with all the raw data. It's all right here:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/26850

  51. #1951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's funny how peer-reviewed studies utilising multiple models & varied statistical methods are "bad science" because the peers are all part of the sooper sekrit climate cabal & just pushing that "Big Climate" agenda.
    It's not funny at all, but it is well documented. Peer review doesn't mean much in climate science. And there's a major problem with peer review in many areas. I guess you haven't heard about that.

    How do you verify software simulations when the code isn't released? Programmers produce any trend they want. So much science, so much money, so little proof. It's not science when you have ro take thier word for it.
    The source code is released, along with all the raw data. It's all right here:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/26850
    No, it isn't. "Adjustments" are made to the code. Numerous variables get set, as well as starting conditions.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #1952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's funny how peer-reviewed studies utilising multiple models & varied statistical methods are "bad science" because the peers are all part of the sooper sekrit climate cabal & just pushing that "Big Climate" agenda.
    It's not funny at all, but it is well documented. Peer review doesn't mean much in climate science. And there's a major problem with peer review in many areas. I guess you haven't heard about that.

    How do you verify software simulations when the code isn't released? Programmers produce any trend they want. So much science, so much money, so little proof. It's not science when you have ro take thier word for it.
    The source code is released, along with all the raw data. It's all right here:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/26850
    No, it isn't. "Adjustments" are made to the code. Numerous variables get set, as well as starting conditions.
    Adjustments? That’s called code. Starting conditions are pretty much required if you want to show anything from point A to B.

  53. #1953

    Default

    "If these scientific models are so perfect, why do they take INPUT to make OUTPUT? And why are there always NEW studies? When the OLD study came out it was supposedly good, but now it's not and we need NEW stuff? What's up with that!? Get it right the first time, so called 'scientists'. You're all in cahoots!"
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  54. #1954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    "If these scientific models are so perfect, why do they take INPUT to make OUTPUT? And why are there always NEW studies? When the OLD study came out it was supposedly good, but now it's not and we need NEW stuff? What's up with that!? Get it right the first time, so called 'scientists'. You're all in cahoots!"
    Exactly!

    Just as all would take is a single TRUTH post to debunk them all.

    BTW:
    Where are all the critics’ models?
    Where is all the critics’ data?
    Last edited by KC; 26-07-2019 at 08:48 AM.

  55. #1955

    Default

    They don't want to show that stuff because then it'll get tainted by the horrible & problematic "peer review" system.

    Keeping it safely out of sight & away from the hands of the so-called "scientists" & their schemes is the only way to keep it untainted & pure.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  56. #1956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    "If these scientific models are so perfect, why do they take INPUT to make OUTPUT? And why are there always NEW studies? When the OLD study came out it was supposedly good, but now it's not and we need NEW stuff? What's up with that!? Get it right the first time, so called 'scientists'. You're all in cahoots!"
    You seem to be acknowledging the climate models aren't accurate. They have to be deadly accurate if they're going to predict 100 years into the future.

    If they're proven wrong, and the have been, then they're useless for measurement.

    This is basic logic and science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  57. #1957

    Default

    Actually, I'm just mocking you with what I thought to be obviously, over-the-top, ridiculous levels of sarcasm. If you think I agree with anything you say on the issue you're patently mistaken. I only wade into this morass of a troll thread to point & laugh.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  58. #1958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Actually, I'm just mocking you with what I thought to be obviously, over-the-top, ridiculous levels of sarcasm. If you think I agree with anything you say on the issue you're patently mistaken. I only wade into this morass of a troll thread to point & laugh.
    Yeah, it's usually a mistake for me to engage with climate advocates. I'm here to educate the good people of Edmonton and Alberta. They may not agree with my position, but in reviewing the literature I present they can learn something. Mockery, ridicule, and sarcasm doesn't add much to the discussion, except paint a picture of just what climate change is based on. Climate advocates like yourself scream science but completely ignore it. So does the media. This is just one of many aspects of the issue to learn. I'm here to empower people to question the lies they're being told, and not to fear the thugs.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  59. #1959

    Default

    I'm waiting for your other "empowering" threads, such as "The TRUTH about the flat earth Big Globe doesn't want you to know about".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #1960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    "If these scientific models are so perfect, why do they take INPUT to make OUTPUT? And why are there always NEW studies? When the OLD study came out it was supposedly good, but now it's not and we need NEW stuff? What's up with that!? Get it right the first time, so called 'scientists'. You're all in cahoots!"
    You seem to be acknowledging the climate models aren't accurate. They have to be deadly accurate if they're going to predict 100 years into the future.

    If they're proven wrong, and the have been, then they're useless for measurement.

    This is basic logic and science.

    Define accurate.


    Distance to Andromeda - Universe Today


    “Edwin Hubble ended the controversy once and for all in 1925 when he identified Cepheid variable stars in Andromeda, and calculated that the galaxy was actually 1.5 million light-years away.”

    “Modern astronomers are continuing to calculate the distance to Andromeda. In 2003, astronomers calculated that Andromeda is 2.57 million light-years away. And in 2004, astronomers redid Hubble’s Cepheid variable calculations, and determined that Andromeda was 2.51 million light-years. Another group used a different technique in 2005 to calculate that Andromeda was 2.52 million light-years away. And yet another technique in 2005 put it at 2.56 million light-years away. And so, the agreed distance of 2.54 million light-years is an average of the distances measured so far.”

    https://www.universetoday.com/30716/...-to-andromeda/

    Why is deadly accuracy required of predictions?


    Einstein proved right in another galaxy

    “In 1915 Albert Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity (GR) to explain how gravity works. Since then GR has passed a series of high precision tests within the solar system, but there have been no precise tests of GR on large astronomical scales.”


    “"The Universe is an amazing place providing such lenses which we can then use as our laboratories," adds team member Professor Bob Nichol, Director of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation. "It is so satisfying to use the best telescopes in the world to challenge Einstein, only to find out how right he was."

    https://phys.org/news/2018-06-einstein-galaxy.html

    A worthwhile read:

    Who Were Einstein’s Opponents? | MPIWG

    “Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science.”


    ...
    “ in other instances, it was patiently explained how their criticisms of the theory of relativity had completely missed the mark. But because their observations were anchored in specific worldviews, Patschke and his associates were immune to this type of criticism. Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible...”



    https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/news...tures-feature7


    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 26-07-2019 at 11:25 AM.

  61. #1961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'm waiting for your other "empowering" threads, such as "The TRUTH about the flat earth Big Globe doesn't want you to know about".
    You forgot about the holocaust. Calling me a "denier" links me with holocaust deniers.

    Your tactics are an obvious attempt to shut down the discussion. Climate advocates despise education, discussion, and debate. You are making that clear. I'm just stating the obvious for everybody to see. You hate science, you hate honesty, and you're not interested in learning anything about climate science. You want others to buy into your agenda. Discussion and knowledge hurt your cause. Be as sarcastic as you like. People need to know what climate science is, and you're helping me.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  62. #1962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'm waiting for your other "empowering" threads, such as "The TRUTH about the flat earth Big Globe doesn't want you to know about".
    You forgot about the holocaust. Calling me a "denier" links me with holocaust deniers.

    Your tactics are an obvious attempt to shut down the discussion. Climate advocates despise education, discussion, and debate. You are making that clear. I'm just stating the obvious for everybody to see. You hate science, you hate honesty, and you're not interested in learning anything about climate science. You want others to buy into your agenda. Discussion and knowledge hurt your cause. Be as sarcastic as you like. People need to know what climate science is, and you're helping me.
    Says the guy that assigns near every challenging reference either; a liar blog status and a conspiracy/self-interest status. Moreover you talk of science but from day one had the audacity to claim in your thread title that you were providing the TRUTH. A position of which there may be fewer greater fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of scientific discovery.
    Last edited by KC; 26-07-2019 at 11:26 AM.

  63. #1963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    You forgot about the holocaust. Calling me a "denier" links me with holocaust deniers.
    You can also be lumped in with antivaxxers, crypto-zoologists, creationists, homeopaths, the anti-GMO movement & a whole bunch of other kooky beliefs unsupported by science. If you don't want to be lumped in with other folks displaying the same level of cognitive dissonance on other topics, perhaps you need to re-evaluate yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Your tactics are an obvious attempt to shut down the discussion.
    I would never dream of shutting down the discussion, as then where would I get my laughs from?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Climate advocates despise education, discussion, and debate. You are making that clear.
    Untrue. There's still lots of education, discussion & debate, it's just not at the level you want it to be. Whether climate change is real is not up for debate in any legitimate scientific circles & as such the discussion has moved on to other areas of the complicated, complex issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I'm just stating the obvious for everybody to see. You hate science, you hate honesty, and you're not interested in learning anything about climate science.
    Three wrong statements in a row there. Strike 3, yeerrrrrrrrr outtttaa heeeerrree!

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    You want others to buy into your agenda.
    The only person with an agenda in this thread is you, bucko. At least insofar as the main topic goes. Plenty of us seem to have an agenda of deriving mirth from watching you shake your fist at overwhelming consensus.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Discussion and knowledge hurt your cause.
    Says the guy promoting the definition of fringe beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Be as sarcastic as you like. People need to know what climate science is, and you're helping me.
    You have issues with some of the fundamental principles of the scientific method, making whatever you're pushing by definition not science.

    (You also may want to brush up on your lingo & patter if you want to be taken seriously as an actual poster. You're clearly not local & reek of astroturfing.)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  64. #1964

    Default

    Mr.Combust doesn’t really see himself as a scientist. He sees himself as a soldier.

    Moreover he’s not pursuing knowledge but instead pursuing weaponry and offensive tactics to defend his own self interests and preconceived beliefs. It’s not at all about seeking any kind of truth.
    Last edited by KC; 26-07-2019 at 11:41 AM.

  65. #1965

    Default

    Or some sort of pariah, bravely subjecting himself to the slings & arrows of the climate cabal for daring to ask "What if 99% of scientists are wrong?"
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #1966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Or some sort of pariah, bravely subjecting himself to the slings & arrows of the climate cabal for daring to ask "What if 99% of scientists are wrong?"
    Yes and without a superior theory to supplant the accepted science. The 99% can be wrong. Einstein faced that battle over ether. However, ether was just that.

    Einstein however had a scientifically grounded theory and those scientists re-evaluated and challenged their own understandings and switched positions to largely agree with Einstein.

    MrCombust has no competing theory or hypothesis, which can be ok*, however he keeps raising the bar (ever more accuracy, perfection, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt -a century out) while proclaiming that somehow the consensus is totally wrong.


    * does God or do Gods exist? The scientific conclusion today would likely be: No. nonetheless scientists knowing that their tools and questions are rudimentary will keep asking that question. It’s possibly reasonable to question the science. However, the science pretty much establishes that a wide variety of past beliefs in God(s) were wrong. Even religions reject other religions’ beliefs in alternatively defined/described gods often using scientific methods. (Zeus is likely none too thrilled by this.)
    Last edited by KC; 26-07-2019 at 12:02 PM.

  67. #1967

    Default

    You guys have been feeding that troll for 18 months now...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  68. #1968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    You guys have been feeding that troll for 18 months now...
    Ahh, you’re inserting a verifiable and likely agreeable fact! I don’t think that’s welcomed on this thread.

    Most facts bounce off the walls of this silo.

  69. #1969

    Default

    I’d rather have him here vainly trying to change minds with all the efficacy of trying to stop an Oldsmobile by throwing raisins at it than elsewhere where he might actually find a sucker to buy what he’s shovelling.

    Plus, free laughs.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  70. #1970
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    strange how that last graph excludes the part where CO2 jumps from around 280 ppm to over 400 in 50 years. Would look pretty jarring, and certainly doesn't match the modest increase of ~20ppm over the last 7000 years.
    It's only strange if you don't understand science. The CO2 graph is based on ice core data. It does not do modern readings. And there's nothing jarring about a few hundred parts per million if you know CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Only blocking infra-red bands already being blocked by water vapour.
    So first you post this to show that CO2 has been increasing for 7000 years, and then when it's pointed out how this is misleading, you immediately jump to how CO2 isn't a big deal anyways. You are terrible at keeping to a consistent argument, you can't even go two posts without changing your argument based on it's convenience.

  71. #1971

    Default The TRUTH. Climate science is incompatable with convection

    We all know convection transports heat. We all know the wind blows. Heat can be transported to the upper atmosphere by convection where it can be released to space.
    In order for CO2 to "trap" heat, convection must not exist.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  72. #1972

    Default

    Sounds like someone doesn't really understand the atmosphere.

    Strange, for being such a climate science expert.



    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ge...he-atmosphere/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  73. #1973
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,505

    Default

    I like how he seems to think that convection is the ONLY way for energy/heat to move around. Never mind radiation or conduction, those are just conspiracies!

  74. #1974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Or some sort of pariah, bravely subjecting himself to the slings & arrows of the climate cabal for daring to ask "What if 99% of scientists are wrong?"
    No, this isn't what I'm doing. You really overrate yourself when you talk about slings and arrows. I've done this dance before. It doesn't end well for the climate advocates.

    7,000 years of cooling while CO2 rises. That might stick in the heads of the good people of Edmonton and Alberta long after they've forgotten your name.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  75. #1975

    Default

    Sure thing, science denier. You certainly have changed so many opinions here on C2E.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  76. #1976
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    I think there's been so much good information refuting him, there's a good chance that opinions have changed. Just not the way he's hoped.

  77. #1977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    I think there's been so much good information refuting him, there's a good chance that opinions have changed. Just not the way he's hoped.
    The opinions of the advocates haven't changed. But as far as I can tell none of you know what science is. My posts aren't for you guys. My posts are for the 100,000+ views, and the people who gave this thread a 4 star rating.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  78. #1978
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    But as far as I can tell none of you know what science is.
    Well now that's an interesting conclusion. Tell us, what is your educational background? What makes you an authority?

  79. #1979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    But as far as I can tell none of you know what science is.
    Well now that's an interesting conclusion. Tell us, what is your educational background? What makes you an authority?
    7,000 years CO2 rises, 7,000 years temperature goes down. CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Grade school science.I think I learned about cause and effect in grade 6. You must have failed.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 26-07-2019 at 06:38 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  80. #1980
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Hmmm well now that's a rather simplistic conclusion. You know that no one has once ever claimed that CO2 is the only thing that effects climate right? There's plenty of factors, so of course a small shift of 20 ppm doesn't really have an effect on the global temperature that would be easy to separate from everything else going on. But we're not talking about 20 ppm, we're talking about over 120 ppm.

    If you're suggesting it's a pure cause and effect system, would you like to change your argument to "CO2 actually causes the globe to cool"? Because with your logic that would be the conclusion you have to make.

    And I promise I have graduated from grade 6, don't you worry. In fact, I imagine if you took an inventory of the level of education of all the people posting rebuttals to you in this thread, it would be pretty impressive. But I'm sure that would just be proof to you that we're all "brainwashed".

  81. #1981
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A post by MrCompost
    CO2 doesn't affect temperature.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost's signature 3 lines down
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia


    Any more pants crapping you'd like to do on this lovely Friday evening?

  82. #1982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    But as far as I can tell none of you know what science is.
    Well now that's an interesting conclusion. Tell us, what is your educational background? What makes you an authority?
    7,000 years CO2 rises, 7,000 years temperature goes down. CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Grade school science.I think I learned about cause and effect in grade 6. You must have failed.
    Key driver in temperature changes are the degree of water vapor in the atmosphere, followed by CO2, then methane, then ozone. Your 6th grade education can't compare against decades of accumulated academic and scholarly growth.

    And I have to ask you, are you paid to argue this? How can one spend a small portion of their entire life on a message board arguing pseudoscience if there's nothing to gain? Honest question.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  83. #1983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Hmmm well now that's a rather simplistic conclusion. You know that no one has once ever claimed that CO2 is the only thing that effects climate right? There's plenty of factors, so of course a small shift of 20 ppm doesn't really have an effect on the global temperature that would be easy to separate from everything else going on. But we're not talking about 20 ppm, we're talking about over 120 ppm.

    If you're suggesting it's a pure cause and effect system, would you like to change your argument to "CO2 actually causes the globe to cool"? Because with your logic that would be the conclusion you have to make.

    And I promise I have graduated from grade 6, don't you worry. In fact, I imagine if you took an inventory of the level of education of all the people posting rebuttals to you in this thread, it would be pretty impressive. But I'm sure that would just be proof to you that we're all "brainwashed".
    Did you read my posts about the consensus? Did you review John Cook's data? If you did you must know the consensus is fake and stupid. Don't tell me how smart you are if you didn't read my posts on that.
    Tell me how you get a 97% consensus from 64 of 12,000.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  84. #1984
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Hmmm well now that's a rather simplistic conclusion. You know that no one has once ever claimed that CO2 is the only thing that effects climate right? There's plenty of factors, so of course a small shift of 20 ppm doesn't really have an effect on the global temperature that would be easy to separate from everything else going on. But we're not talking about 20 ppm, we're talking about over 120 ppm.

    If you're suggesting it's a pure cause and effect system, would you like to change your argument to "CO2 actually causes the globe to cool"? Because with your logic that would be the conclusion you have to make.

    And I promise I have graduated from grade 6, don't you worry. In fact, I imagine if you took an inventory of the level of education of all the people posting rebuttals to you in this thread, it would be pretty impressive. But I'm sure that would just be proof to you that we're all "brainwashed".
    Did you read my posts about the consensus? Did you review John Cook's data? If you did you must know the consensus is fake and stupid. Don't tell me how smart you are if you didn't read my posts on that.
    Tell me how you get a 97% consensus from 64 of 12,000.
    Heh, much like your BS argument against the "hockey stick graph" which you seem to think is only a single study, as opposed to now dozens of independent temperature reconstructions, there have been multiple studies conducted on the "consensus" using different methodologies: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...h6F8lx7raSMDEo

    Much of the public discussion focusses on the 2013 Cook article which claimed that there is a 97% consensus among experts in AGW. This has become the poster child of the consensus argument, much in the way Mann’s original article has become the icon of the “hockey stick” of global temperatures. The denialist strategy here is the same – falsely present the situation as if all the scientific eggs are in one basket, and then attack that basket with everything you have.


    Deniers always try to portray theories they don’t like as on the brink of collapse, as a house of cards that will blow over in the slightest wind. Creationists say this about evolutionary theory, for example. But the truth belies these fictions. The consensus on AGW is real and robust, and the trend in scientific evidence is only getting stronger.

    Does this mean the science is “settled.” That is actually not the question, and in fact is a silly semantic distraction from the science itself. Science is a never-ending process, and is never 100% settled. But that is irrelevant. The question, rather, is when is a scientific theory sufficiently established that we can treat it as a fact?

    When it comes to policy the question is best framed as – when is there sufficient evidence to form a basis for policy? When framed properly, this question regarding AGW is pretty clear. There is strong enough evidence and a solid enough consensus of experts and scientific institutions to base policy on the tentative conclusion that AGW is real, human contributions are significant, and the results are likely to be costly and net harmful.

  85. #1985

    Default

    Why don't you pick any one of those surveys and review the methodology. Verify the methodology is correct, and then present it here as "science". I know you haven't done this, because the methodology of all of them would also fail a grade school science class.

    Cook turned 64 of 12,000 into 97%
    Doran's 97% wasn't even based on 97 scientists.
    Oreskes wasn't peer reviewed and her data remains unpublished, so I guess we'll have to take her word for it.

    Multiple surveys. Show me one that would pass a high school science class. I'm not attacking one basket, I'm attacking them all. Above are three of them debunked. If you want more details read the surveys yourself. Assuming you have a high school grasp of science. Of which you have yet to demonstrate.

    Your liar blog also says this, of which NONE of the surveys surveyed.............
    "*a solid enough consensus of experts and scientific institutions to base policy on the tentative conclusion that AGW is real, human contributions are significant, and the results are likely to be costly and net harmful."
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-07-2019 at 02:16 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  86. #1986

    Default

    It really sounds like MrCombust is describing himself in the post above

  87. #1987
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    ^^burden of proof is on you. You go through them and tell us how they're flawed, instead of just saying they are. After all, you're the one coming here to give us the TRUTH. We clearly need your help, oh mighty one, to understand what's flawed about them.

  88. #1988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^^burden of proof is on you. You go through them and tell us how they're flawed, instead of just saying they are. After all, you're the one coming here to give us the TRUTH. We clearly need your help, oh mighty one, to understand what's flawed about them.
    You argue from a position of ignorance and say it's my fault.
    Right after bragging about the combined level of education of you and your fellow advocates.

    None of you. NONE OF YOU, will look at the surveys.

    My posts are not for you guys. My posts are for people who are interested in the truth, and want to educate themselves.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-07-2019 at 01:20 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  89. #1989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    But as far as I can tell none of you know what science is.
    Well now that's an interesting conclusion. Tell us, what is your educational background? What makes you an authority?
    7,000 years CO2 rises, 7,000 years temperature goes down. CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Grade school science.I think I learned about cause and effect in grade 6. You must have failed.
    Key driver in temperature changes are the degree of water vapor in the atmosphere, followed by CO2, then methane, then ozone. Your 6th grade education can't compare against decades of accumulated academic and scholarly growth.

    And I have to ask you, are you paid to argue this? How can one spend a small portion of their entire life on a message board arguing pseudoscience if there's nothing to gain? Honest question.

    I'll get excited when you post some actual science. Your blathering propaganda is a bore. But you have no science, just threats and personal attacks.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  90. #1990

    Default

    Looks guys, he's doubling down on the insults and personal attacks while dismissing peer reviewed science and well proven facts.

  91. #1991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    But as far as I can tell none of you know what science is.
    Well now that's an interesting conclusion. Tell us, what is your educational background? What makes you an authority?
    7,000 years CO2 rises, 7,000 years temperature goes down. CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Grade school science.I think I learned about cause and effect in grade 6. You must have failed.
    Key driver in temperature changes are the degree of water vapor in the atmosphere, followed by CO2, then methane, then ozone. Your 6th grade education can't compare against decades of accumulated academic and scholarly growth.

    And I have to ask you, are you paid to argue this? How can one spend a small portion of their entire life on a message board arguing pseudoscience if there's nothing to gain? Honest question.

    I'll get excited when you post some actual science. Your blathering propaganda is a bore. But you have no science, just threats and personal attacks.
    “you have no science” And where is the critic’s science, the critics own test instruments, their own data? They can even be bothered to collect their own data to prove some other case. They don’t even seem to have a case of their own to prove. They are all over the map in their criticisms.

    What do the critics even believe? What hypotheses are they testing?

  92. #1992
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^^burden of proof is on you. You go through them and tell us how they're flawed, instead of just saying they are. After all, you're the one coming here to give us the TRUTH. We clearly need your help, oh mighty one, to understand what's flawed about them.
    You argue from a position of ignorance and say it's my fault.
    Right after bragging about the combined level of education of you and your fellow advocates.

    None of you. NONE OF YOU, will look at the surveys.

    My posts are not for you guys. My posts are for people who are interested in the truth, and want to educate themselves.
    Well part of having a discussion is discussing what other people claim. The only problem is, is that any time someone posts something refuting your claims you either ignore it completely, or dismiss it based on some random arbitrary logic that seems to only make sense to you.

    We don't come from a place of ignorance, but why should we spend the time going through step by step to show you that the science is sound, when anytime someone has (people have taken the time for you multiple times now to lay out the science for you), you ignore or dismiss it? And continue to move the goal posts of the standards you hold science to, while not holding yourself to anywhere close to the same standards
    Last edited by seamusmcduffs; 28-07-2019 at 12:15 PM.

  93. #1993

    Default The TRUTH. Another paper tries to disappear the MWP and LIA

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    The truth is that there is strong evidence of more warming in more places all happening right now than at any other point in the last 2000 years. The evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period pale in comparison.

    No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
    Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2
    Since the fraudulent hockey stick graph was first published they've been trying to disappear variations in the climate. OffWhyte's paper is the latest attempt to pretend there's no such thing as natural climate change. They say in this new paper the climate didn't change for 2,000 years. But the Medieval Warm period (MWP)(1,000 years ago)was when Vikings lived in Greenland, and the Little Ice age (LIA) was when the Thames river froze over in England.

    Climate change "science" is a parallel universe of "science" that has nothing to do with reality. They just pretend the MWP and LIA never exěsted to make it look like the temperature never changed before CO2 started to rise. These papers that still get published are laughable. But the majority of the public is still fooled, so the demand for the fake science continues.

    Joanne Nova is a scientist who has compiled the scientific literature of the MWP and LIA. You can review hundreds of publications on these times when it warmed and cooled without the help of CO2. More are being published every year.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/era...ery-continent/





    MWP in Canada................



    MWP in Antarctica (2019)....

    Last edited by MrCombust; 30-07-2019 at 09:49 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  94. #1994
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,230

    Default

    ^

    how much unrelated crap can you get in to a single post anyway?

    OffWhyte's paper isn't really his, it belongs to raphael neukom, nathan steiger, juan josé gómez-navarro, jianghao wang & Johannes p. werner and it makes no attempt to "disappear" variations in the climate despite your assertion of same.

    joanna nova is a micro-biologist. her qualifications are about the same as everyone else here and nowhere near those writing and publishing on the all of the liar blogs your love to dismiss so out of hand. if anything, the data on her chart seems to prove out the paper referenced above as do both of the subsequent images.

    by the way, one of ms. nova's best and best known quotes includes her stating that "...carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that's all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that."

    it must be pretty slim pickings when even your own expert's testimony pretty much blows most of your TRUTH right out of the water.


    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  95. #1995
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  96. #1996

    Default

    Maybe try to explain what you think this graph represents and how it plays into your entrenched position on Climate Change.... instead of just "TRUTH"...

  97. #1997

  98. #1998

    Default

    If you look back through history you’ll see that like a gazookian years ago there was another decade or so where we had the same sorta kinda nearly similar temperature record...so that proves that:

    The lines on the graph go up and down
    Up and down
    Up and down
    The lines on the graph go up and down
    All 'round the town

    The driver behind the graph goes move us back
    Move us back
    Move us back
    The driver behind the graph goes move us back

    The lies about the graph, go from left to right
    ...
    Last edited by KC; 31-07-2019 at 07:57 AM.

  99. #1999

    Default The TRUTH. What real climate change looks like..........

    The media tells us the climate is changing. The signs are obvious. And that it's never happened before. So it MUST be because of CO2.

    Climate change is a parallel universe that has nothing to do with reality.

    Here's what REAL climate change looks like. Drought, crop failures, climate refugees, 1,000's dead...............

    Last edited by MrCombust; 02-08-2019 at 11:37 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  100. #2000

    Default The TRUTH. Google and Hollywood are going to save the planet

    The super rich are taking their private jets and mega yachts to meet in Italy to discuss how everybody else should be reducing their carbon footprint..................

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101617181920212223 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •