The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[ding]

This is all dynamics ... the push and pull of the high and low pressure systems ... nothing unusual about what you describe ...



The first well documented drought in California was in the 1880's ... wiped out the cattle business that was thriving at the time ...
The drought of the 1920's wiped out the fledgling wheat business ... but Them the People got smart and hardened their water systems ...
Thus, the drought in the 1970's didn't actually wreak the economy ... we had enough water stored to get us by ... (barely) ...
The drought in the 2010's wasn't any worse than the one I lived through in the late 1970's ... the difference was so much more land planted into agriculture ... where the almond and pistachio trees stood naked and dead in 2012 was open prairie in 1979 ...

There's reason to believe this has been occurring since long before Europeans arrived ... long before humans starting burning much coal ...

And every single one of them was caused by CO2, dadgummit. CO2 is the reason the planet is spinning the wrong way, it's why people are lactose intolerant, male pattern baldness and teenage pregnancies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a complicated issue. Clearly something is happening, but what is it?

Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?

 

[ding]

Just yesterday CO2 made me stump my big toe.

 

[ding]

Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?

Will they be able to tell me why the planet is 2C colder than previous interglacial cycles when we have 120 ppm more CO2 than previous interglacial cycles?

Because you sure as hell couldn't.

 

[ding]

Someone told me that it was as simple as if there is more green house gas their will be hotter temperatures.

Hmmmm... that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?

Have you read the IPCC report? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have you read the IPCC report? ...

Yes, the general stuff. Like the headline summary for policy makers. You don't have to get into the weeds to see the state of the science on climate change.

So, gonna check it out?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?

Yeah, let's have a conversation and every time someone asks a question say "speak to someone else"

Also I'm not sure your report will answer my question, but you're free to quote that report if you think I'm wrong.

 

[daveman]

And every single one of them was caused by CO2, dadgummit. CO2 is the reason the planet is spinning the wrong way, it's why people are lactose intolerant, male pattern baldness and teenage pregnancies.

CO2 drank all my beer.

 

[ding]

You don't have to get into the weeds to see the state of the science on climate change.

Ummmmm, yeah... you kinda do have to get into the weeds to understand science. Especially when YOU have simplified the science to more greenhouse gases equals warmer temperatures even though our present climate is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles and has 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than previous interglacial cycles.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, the general stuff. Like the headline summary for policy makers. You don't have to get into the weeds to see the state of the science on climate change.

So, gonna check it out?

Bullshit ... you're lying now ... you have NOT read the IPCC report ... that son-of-a-bitch is seven times longer than the Holy Bible (= half the length of The Wheel of Time) ... you skimmed through and only read the parts that you already agreed with ... anything that worked against your prejudices is just "weeds" ... yeah, right ...

This explains why you foolishly endorse a catastrophic future in violation of the Laws of Nature ... physical laws are just `weeds` ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, let's have a conversation and every time someone asks a question say "speak to someone else"

Not everytime. Stop being silly. You asked a question about the state of the science of a complicated topic being worked on by 100s of 1000s of scientists worldwide.

So you ask a nonscientist on a message board? Ask the scientists. Then discuss what they say.

What discussion did you want to have? Did you want the stranger to look this up for you?

Read the headline summary, it has general answers to those questions. Do you want me to post it?

 

[ReinyDays]

So you ask a nonscientist on a message board?

If you're admitting to being a non-scientist ... then could you kindly shut-the-fuck-up during science discussions? ... or at least be a little more humble ... you're not a scientist, we don't expect you to know anything about energy ... or work performed ... or why gravity points straight up sometimes ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you're admitting to being a non-scientist ..

"If"

Anyone here who doesn't admit they are not a research scientist publishing and conducting research related to climate change is a liar.

Including you. Show us your published research related to climate. Oh, you don't have any.

I guess you will be shutting the fuck up now, per your own advice. Bye!

Oh and look, so will everyone else. Bye losers!

/thread

Sorry guys, ReinyDays makes the rules around here. RIP science section.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you're admitting to being a non-scientist ... then could you kindly shut-the-fuck-up during science discussions? ... or at least be a little more humble ... you're not a scientist, we don't expect you to know anything about energy ... or work performed ... or why gravity points straight up sometimes ...

How fucking dumb. If you want to know what is going g on with climate science, you defer to climate scientists on the whole and the body of science on the whole. Even the most prolific climate scientist does this, as their own work encompasses only a tiny fraction of the mountains of mutually supportive research and evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am not sure how you guys were raised, but no, you have not outsmarted the experts with your Google searches and blog puking.

Here is how this works:

You go to the expert panel to see what the body of science says about climate change.

If you want to know, for example, our best ideas of what this will mean for Sea levels, you go see what the oceanographers say.

If you want to hear our best ideas for what acidification of our oceans means for marine ecosystems,you go ask the biologists and the ecologists.

Then, discuss. You don't ask uneducated slobs on message boards and youtube quacks for competing hypotheses. Unless you are a fraud.

Very simple.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go over to a cosmology thread... funny, you don't see people citing youtubers and fringe scientists (who publish and conduct NO research) to dispute the distance to Andromeda, or the relativistic jets being tossed off by superlative black holes, or the basic ideas of star and planet formation.

"Sure, the world's scientists agree that gravity waves result from the collisions of massive objects in space. But look at this youtube video I found from some guy in Albania who says otherwise..."

Absurd.

But we see this in climate threads, because a fat guy with white hair named after a squirming lizard made this topic political 30 years ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bullshit ... you're lying now ... you have NOT read the IPCC report .

Sure I have. In fact, just about any serious person interested in this topic has looked at it. They provide short summaries written specifically for laypeople like you.

The policymakers of the planet read it. But apparently you think you are either too good or too incapable to read it.

The fact that you have not looked at it or read their summaries should embarrass you a bit, since you seem so willing to discuss and criticize these items that appear in them. Do you just make them up as you go, then? You must.

 

[ding]

"If"

Anyone here who doesn't admit they are not a research scientist publishing and conducting research related to climate change is a liar.

Including you. Show us your published research related to climate. Oh, you don't have any.

I guess you will be shutting the fuck up now, per your own advice. Bye!

Oh and look, so will everyone else. Bye losers!

/thread

Sorry guys, ReinyDays makes the rules around here. RIP science section.

I suspect ReinyDays has a PhD in a field that is related to climate. Now would be a good time for you to stop talking. Better for you to be silent and let us think you the fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

[ding]

Go over to a cosmology thread... funny, you don't see people citing youtubers and fringe scientists (who publish and conduct NO research) to dispute the distance to Andromeda, or the relativistic jets being tossed off by superlative black holes, or the basic ideas of star and planet formation.

"Sure, the world's scientists agree that gravity waves result from the collisions of massive objects in space. But look at this youtube video I found from some guy in Albania who says otherwise..."

Absurd.

Did you even attend a community college?