Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Kilo_302]

Wrapped up nicely and neatly. There are lots of links within the article (far too many to cut and paste here), but going to the link will get you the article and access to the links as well:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warming-paradigm-scuttled/?singlepage=true

You really are hopeless. Every single one of these arguments has been debunked on this thread. You didn't try to explain the Exxon piece either.

From your author's wikiavid Solway (born 8 December 1941) is a Canadian poet, educational theorist, travel writer and literary critic of Jewish descent.

Are you so rabidly impervious to new data that you're posting stuff from a POET?  Or is it his credentials as a fucking travel writer that has you so convinced?

Please stop stealing our oxygen.

 

[Loachman]

What is your occupation?

What makes a member of your occupation any more qualified to speak about this matter than a poet?

Hmmm?

Anybody can read stuff and comment on it and quote it, but I think that the poet's take on this is far more accurate and correct than than yours, regardless of how much more qualified you think that you are because of your occupation.

I began flying in the CF in 1979. Weather has been a significant factor in my life since then. Aviation forecasts are issued every six hours, because professional meteorologists and computer models cannot adequately predict beyond that at the best of times. Amended forecasts, issued within that cycle, are not uncommon. I have been caught in unforecast bad weather on numerous occasions, as have many others.

The atmosphere is far too complex. Too many things influence it.

Usually, however, the met guy can tell me why the actual weather deviated from the forecast. I do not see that ability among the alarmist crowd.

And, several times, my personal prediction has been better than the official forecast, because I have seen previous patterns and can understand local effects. I put much more faith in predictions based upon historical patterns than narrowly/purposefully-selected "data" run through a computer model of dubious quality.

Anybody who thinks that they understand our environment adequately enough to predict the future is nuts. Any political leader willing to wreck his/her country's economy because of the arrogant assumptions of warm-mongers, regardless of how many "p"s, "h"s, and "d"s they have behind their names, is criminally negligent.

The climate has always varied. It always will. It's been doing that long before an early humanoid built the first carbon-spewing campfire. It will continue to do so until we put the first thermostat on the sun.

You really are hopeless. Please stop stealing our oxygen.

And dicking with our economy.

 

[Kilo_302]

What is your occupation?

What makes a member of your occupation any more qualified to speak about this matter than a poet?

Hmmm?

Anybody can read stuff and comment on it and quote it, but I think that the poet's take on this is far more accurate and correct than than yours, regardless of how much more qualified you think that you are because of your occupation.

I began flying in the CF in 1979. Weather has been a significant factor in my life since then. Aviation forecasts are issued every six hours, because professional meteorologists and computer models cannot adequately predict beyond that at the best of times. Amended forecasts, issued within that cycle, are not uncommon. I have been caught in unforecast bad weather on numerous occasions, as have many others.

The atmosphere is far too complex. Too many things influence it.

Usually, however, the met guy can tell me why the actual weather deviated from the forecast. I do not see that ability among the alarmist crowd.

And, several times, my personal prediction has been better than the official forecast, because I have seen previous patterns and can understand local effects. I put much more faith in predictions based upon historical patterns than narrowly/purposefully-selected "data" run through a computer model of dubious quality.

Anybody who thinks that they understand our environment adequately enough to predict the future is nuts. Any political leader willing to wreck his/her country's economy because of the arrogant assumptions of warm-mongers, regardless of how many "p"s, "h"s, and "d"s they have behind their names, is criminally negligent.

The climate has always varied. It always will. It's been doing that long before an early humanoid built the first carbon-spewing campfire. It will continue to do so until we put the first thermostat on the sun.

You really are hopeless. Please stop stealing our oxygen.

And dicking with our economy.

You should bring all of these nuggets of wisdom to the attention of NASA immediately. Truly earth shattering stuff.

And yes, I'll take the word of the vast majority of scientists over a poet. That shouldn't even have to be stated. I guess you're also immune to new data. Where do you guys come from?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The real world. That is where we come from.

 

[Loachman]

Either you are dodging my question, Kilo_302, or you are incapable of understanding it.

Mr Solway's occupation is irrelevant, except to you.

His article was based not upon any direct research and analysis that he did himself (nor did he so claim), but upon that of "undeniably respectable scientists like Nobel laureate Fred Singer" who tend not to believe that "the science is settled", as well as pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the wealthier "activists".

Mr Solway is simply doing what you are doing, unless you, yourself, are a climate scientist with a PhD or two. Maybe you are. It's not in your profile.

So I ask you again, Dr Kilo_302 - what is your occupation, and what aspect of it better qualifies you to parrot other people's opinions than Mr Solway's occupation does?

As for NASA, there's a readily-apparent difference of opinion among its personnel. The amount of agreement is far less than the warm-mongers would have people believe, despite attempts by such as Michael Mann to bully those who disagree with them into silence. I am watching the progress (or rather lack thereof) of his lawsuit against Mark Steyn with great interest, and more than a little mirth.

Mr Steyn, by the way, has just published a book demonstrating what Mann's colleagues really think of him and his "work" and that, too, is entertaining.

As for me, I am constantly reviewing new data on a variety of subjects, and I am far from inflexible in my opinions. I do not form opinions without a little study in the first place, and, should a reasonable argument be presented that contradicts the earlier information upon which I based my initial opinion, I will take that into consideration. Sometimes I accept the new argument, sometimes I reject it.

I've yet to see any coherent argument that proves that human activity is driving natural, cyclical variations in our climate. I've seen more than enough to cast sufficient doubt upon such theories.

So, again, in case you missed my question both times, I'll give you a third chance to establish a little more personal credibility than a poet's: what is your occupation?

 

[cld617]

Wrapped up nicely and neatly. There are lots of links within the article (far too many to cut and paste here), but going to the link will get you the article and access to the links as well:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warming-paradigm-scuttled/?singlepage=true

1. There has been no global warming for the last eighteen years and counting.

Simply put, this completely false.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

His article was based not upon any direct research and analysis that he did himself (nor did he so claim), but upon that of "undeniably respectable scientists like Nobel laureate Fred Singer" who tend not to believe that "the science is settled", as well as pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the wealthier "activists".

You may be impressed by his credentials, however they certainly do not make him an expert in this field. This combined with the fact that his argument roughly amounts to "c02 can be good" is painfully simple to debunk.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

[Kilo_302]

Either you are dodging my question, Kilo_302, or you are incapable of understanding it.

Mr Solway's occupation is irrelevant, except to you.

His article was based not upon any direct research and analysis that he did himself (nor did he so claim), but upon that of "undeniably respectable scientists like Nobel laureate Fred Singer" who tend not to believe that "the science is settled", as well as pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the wealthier "activists".

Mr Solway is simply doing what you are doing, unless you, yourself, are a climate scientist with a PhD or two. Maybe you are. It's not in your profile.

So I ask you again, Dr Kilo_302 - what is your occupation, and what aspect of it better qualifies you to parrot other people's opinions than Mr Solway's occupation does?

As for NASA, there's a readily-apparent difference of opinion among its personnel. The amount of agreement is far less than the warm-mongers would have people believe, despite attempts by such as Michael Mann to bully those who disagree with them into silence. I am watching the progress (or rather lack thereof) of his lawsuit against Mark Steyn with great interest, and more than a little mirth.

Mr Steyn, by the way, has just published a book demonstrating what Mann's colleagues really think of him and his "work" and that, too, is entertaining.

As for me, I am constantly reviewing new data on a variety of subjects, and I am far from inflexible in my opinions. I do not form opinions without a little study in the first place, and, should a reasonable argument be presented that contradicts the earlier information upon which I based my initial opinion, I will take that into consideration. Sometimes I accept the new argument, sometimes I reject it.

I've yet to see any coherent argument that proves that human activity is driving natural, cyclical variations in our climate. I've seen more than enough to cast sufficient doubt upon such theories.

So, again, in case you missed my question both times, I'll give you a third chance to establish a little more personal credibility than a poet's: what is your occupation?

Your question is absolutely irrelevant, and your logic is flawed.

Fred Singer has been thoroughly discredited as a paid hack on behalf of various entities in the petroleum industry. You are treading on ground that has been tread upon numerous times on this thread. It's clear you have already decided what the facts are and for this reason I will not make the same points, post the same articles and have this same discussion with you when all of these have been made in the past. You have the internet at your fingertips. if you're unable to make use of the vast amount of data and research that is in the public domain your mind cannot be changed.

Furthermore, if you're unable to distinguish between the works of people like Singer and Steyn versus those of literally thousands of people from all over the world doing real science I would suggest you're not equipped to have this conversation in the first place. For example, Singer is in the employ of the Heartland Institute.

Just for fun, here's a link that debunks all of Singer's major claims with real scientific research. It won't change your mind but hey I tried.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

 

[Loachman]

I've read a bunch of stuff, from both sides, including various debunkings.

The warmists' debunkings impress me the least.

Now, FOURTH time: What's your occupation, and what about it makes you a better judge of other people's work than Mr Solway, or Mr Steyn?

 

[Scott]

Kilo,

You're on notice, quit fucking around or go into the warning system.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that others are entitled to making up their own minds. You will not deride them for it. Period.

No, this is not me taking action because I do not like your views, it's me taking action because the way you come across is starting to look like trolling. Participate in discussion, be respectful. Your opinion is no more or less credible, so quit putting it out there as such.

Scott
Staff

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The problem is- to Kilo (and many others like him) this is a religion. There is no arguing with dogma.

There is no possible way the dogma could be flawed. And to even question the dogma, is to increasingly risk social ostracism if not out criminal or civil sanction (see recent attempts in the USA to use RICO legislation (intended for organized crime) to go after those who would propose alternate theories.

So much for the scientific method.

 

[George Wallace]

:goodpost:


Kilo_302

Using your own occupation, your own logic and your own words:

"Your opinion is irrelevant."

Others have attempted to discuss.  You have contributed nothing to the discussion besides your narrow views of what YOU believe to be the TRUTH, even debunking people who have intimate knowledge and experience in some of these matters. 

 

[Loachman]

Typical warmista tactics: when their argument has no merit, attempt to shut the other side up.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Michael Bastasch

09/17/2015

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that "have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change."

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed - and continue to engage in and execute - a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

 

[Kilo_302]

Well since I've been warned by staff for being somewhat strident (as if members responding to my posts haven't used similiar language and tone  : ) I'm done here.  :bowing:

 

[GAP]

.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well since I've been warned by staff for being somewhat strident (as if members responding to my posts haven't used similiar language and tone  : ) I'm done here.  :bowing:

Yeah. Like the 10 other times you have said the same thing.b :

Look, I don't mind you being here, even if I disagree with 99 percent of what you post as malinformed drivel.

I am at least open to the possibility that I am wrong. You (apparently) are not. And you seem to side with those who would criminalize even the questioning certain scientific theories.

Must be a pretty strong theory, that it needs to be protected by the full weight of law enforcement...

 

[Loachman]

And I am of exactly the same mind.

 

[Kilo_302]

Yeah. Like the 10 other times you have said the same thing.b :

Look, I don't mind you being here, even if I disagree with 99 percent of what you post as malinformed drivel.

I am at least open to the possibility that I am wrong. You (apparently) are not. And you seem to side with those who would criminalize even the questioning certain scientific theories.

Must be a pretty strong theory, that it needs to be protected by the full weight of law enforcement...

I've never sided with those who think charges should be laid against people who deny climate change. Freedom of speech is paramount. And I am always open to the possibility of being wrong. The fact is, the climate change deniers are a tiny minority and are primarily funded by the petroleum industry. We've been over this several times. It follows that they have very specific interests to protect. So I think the VAST majority of scientists (including those employed by Exxon in the 70s who were doing groundbreaking work at the time, see the article I posted a couple days ago) are probably correct when they say anthropomorphic climate change is reality.

Your sources are the problem. If you're going to agree with this very tiny minority who are being paid by the very people who stand to lose the most if we legislate based on climate change, it is YOU who are narrow minded. Again, follow the money. Neither of us are climate scientists, but a simple analysis of who is paying who, and who stands to gain by denying climate change can only lead to one conclusion. If tomorrow NASA (and every other major scientific institution in the world) for example came out said we had it all wrong, it was solar activity all along, I would probably believe it.

The reason I get frustrated is there is new data on what seems like a weekly basis, and that Exxon article is especially telling. Here we have a petroleum giant identifying climate change in the 70s, and understanding the implications for its business if politicians pick up on it. So it conducts its own research, verifies its findings and then sets in motion a massive denial campaign once the science hits the mainstream in the 1990s. And yet, people here are posting the same old arguments from the same old dozen or scientists or pundits who are clearly in the pay of the petroleum industry.

And every time someone here posts a new finding or a new article that seems to bear out climate change science, it is almost NEVER directly engaged. Instead, unrelated pieces about  natural climate cycles etc are posted again and again. This unwillingness to engage in new evidence, in new data, suggests it is climate deniers who have narrow minds.

 

[Loachman]

And who is paying your scientists? Somebody is, or are they simply doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

And what is your occupation?

 

[Kilo_302]

They're employed by variety of institutions, universities, government etc. And again, as the Exxon example underlines, there was a lot of climate science done by oil companies in the 70s and 80s. But what are you getting at here?

It's not relevant, but I work in IT.

 

[cld617]

And who is paying your scientists? Somebody is, or are they simply doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

The same people through the same channels that developed Penicillin, split the atom, mapped the human genome and got us to the moon. I can say this, I know of no one that started their career as a scientist and has been in that profession every since that focuses on climate change that is raking in the millions. Can you say the same about the forces behind denial? The petroleum industry is valued in the trillions, so forgive if I find your argument of "for profit" conspiracy moot.