Elephant in the Room.....

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,906
Points
280
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
 
OP
SSDD

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,906
Points
280
If global warming is really true then it will be quite the surprise when your horse and you get caught off guard.

Global warming is true...global cooling is true...natural variation is true...man made global warming, however is a scam not supported by the evidence that only the stupid believe in.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
140,841
Reaction score
17,537
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
It's theirs.....let's see what they do with it now.
 
OP
SSDD

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,906
Points
280
Not sure what your response has to do with the OP...

Just expressing sour grapes?
 

Coloradomtnman

Rational and proud of it.
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,421
Reaction score
918
Points
200
Location
Denver
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
Climatologists from all varieties of the political spectrum from all over the world make up the scientific consensus that humankind is accelerating the rate at which the global climate is warming. That isn't going to change just because Republicans run this one country.

What's going to change are any policies in place currently to deal with climate and any money to research climate change. And any official recognition of the scientific evidence that supports accelerated climate change.

Your opinion that AGW is some sort of hoax is due to your partisan and cultural socio-economic bias and getting your information from internet blogs and Facebook posts, and also your lack of comprehension when it comes to science; not because you've done any objective reading of the scholarly articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and interpreted the original data differently from the experts in climatology.
 

Coloradomtnman

Rational and proud of it.
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,421
Reaction score
918
Points
200
Location
Denver
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
It's theirs.....let's see what they do with it now.
Which will be to ignore it as some sort of global wealth redistribution conspiracy of which almost every scientist who studies climate is secretly a member.

We're probably fucking fucked due to their denial and blind arrogance.
 
OP
SSDD

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,906
Points
280
Climatologists from all varieties of the political spectrum from all over the world make up the scientific consensus that humankind is accelerating the rate at which the global climate is warming. That isn't going to change just because Republicans run this one country.
Except rapid warming isn't happening...the rate of change that we have seen over the past 150 years is well within the boundaries of natural variability...that being the case...how do you support the claim that we are accelerating the process...how might one tell human caused warming from natural variability?
 
OP
SSDD

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,906
Points
280
Which will be to ignore it as some sort of global wealth redistribution conspiracy of which almost every scientist who studies climate is secretly a member.

We're probably fucking fucked due to their denial and blind arrogance.
Support your claims....lets see one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,430
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
More evidence for anthropogenic influence on climate change
  1. Gerald R. North1


Detection of Climate Signals

Studies of climate change by means of optimal detection of faint signals embedded in natural variability have been underway for several decades now (1⇓–3), and some more recent ones are referred to in refs. 4⇓⇓–7. These studies are also sometimes referred to as “fingerprint” studies. The idea is that if the space–time pattern of response to one or more external stimuli, such as greenhouse gas increases, is known from, for example, a model simulation or analytical model, then there is an optimal way of weighting the observed data stream over the same space–time domain in such a way as to determine whether the response is really in the data stream. It boils down to construction of a statistical model in the framework of which some kind of statistical significance test can be performed.

Most of the studies of this type have focused on the surface-temperature field because we have a fairly good record of it over the last 150 y, along with well-estimated uncertainties. Moreover, the surface-temperature field is a good indicator of the global-scale response pattern of such global-scale forcings as the carbon dioxide, volcanic dust veils, aerosols, and solar fingerprints. In addition, the surface-temperature field is one of the most important to human habitability of the planet. Finally, the large-scale surface temperature is the easiest to model because it is the most closely connected with and insinuated from the global balance of absorbed solar and terrestrial emitted energy fluxes (4, 5).

By now many studies have found that the response signals in the surface-temperature field—because of such forcings as carbon dioxide increases, atmospheric aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and solar changes—have been successfully detected at high …

[Full Text of this Article]

More evidence for anthropogenic influence on climate change

The elephant in the room is the extant of your willful ignorance.
 

Spare_change

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
1,291
Points
280
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
It's theirs.....let's see what they do with it now.

Just stand aside ... we got it.

It's time for the adults to take charge. The children have played make-believe long enough.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,430
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
Lonnie G Thompson
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Go to:
Abstract
Glaciers serve as early indicators of climate change. Over the last 35 years, our research team has recovered ice-core records of climatic and environmental variations from the polar regions and from low-latitude high-elevation ice fields from 16 countries. The ongoing widespread melting of high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, particularly in low to middle latitudes, provides some of the strongest evidence to date that a large-scale, pervasive, and, in some cases, rapid change in Earth's climate system is underway. This paper highlights observations of 20th and 21st century glacier shrinkage in the Andes, the Himalayas, and on Mount Kilimanjaro. Ice cores retrieved from shrinking glaciers around the world confirm their continuous existence for periods ranging from hundreds of years to multiple millennia, suggesting that climatological conditions that dominate those regions today are different from those under which these ice fields originally accumulated and have been sustained. The current warming is therefore unusual when viewed from the millennial perspective provided by multiple lines of proxy evidence and the 160-year record of direct temperature measurements. Despite all this evidence, plus the well-documented continual increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, societies have taken little action to address this global-scale problem. Hence, the rate of global carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate. As a result of our inaction, we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering.

Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options

Not a hypothesis, but a well supported scientific theory.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,430
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence


Abstract

There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy. This paper extends this line of research by advancing and providing experimental evidence for a “gateway belief model” (GBM). Using national data (N = 1104) from a consensus-message experiment, we find that increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence

And I can post article after article from scientific journals that state the AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,430
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
It's theirs.....let's see what they do with it now.

Just stand aside ... we got it.

It's time for the adults to take charge. The children have played make-believe long enough.
Adults and the idiots than make up their minds on a scientific subject without knowing a damned thing are not the same thing.
 

Spare_change

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
8,690
Reaction score
1,291
Points
280
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
It's theirs.....let's see what they do with it now.

Just stand aside ... we got it.

It's time for the adults to take charge. The children have played make-believe long enough.
Adults and the idiots than make up their minds on a scientific subject without knowing a damned thing are not the same thing.

Nope, but we're trying to bring those Democrats around to science. Seems to be a lost cause, though ... it requires independent thinking.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,511
Reaction score
12,472
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
It's theirs.....let's see what they do with it now.
Which will be to ignore it as some sort of global wealth redistribution conspiracy of which almost every scientist who studies climate is secretly a member.

We're probably fucking fucked due to their denial and blind arrogance.
Yourf own cult high priests say its nothing more than a damn scam. Otmar Edenhoffer made it perfectly clear that CAGW is a scam and its only reason is wealth redistribution.

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.


For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

Readers are encouraged to review the entire interview at GWPF or Google's slightly different translation.

" But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, "

It just does not get to be any clearer than this...



 
Last edited:

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
69,511
Reaction score
23,770
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?




T'would be nice.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
69,511
Reaction score
23,770
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
Climatologists from all varieties of the political spectrum from all over the world make up the scientific consensus that humankind is accelerating the rate at which the global climate is warming. That isn't going to change just because Republicans run this one country.

What's going to change are any policies in place currently to deal with climate and any money to research climate change. And any official recognition of the scientific evidence that supports accelerated climate change.

Your opinion that AGW is some sort of hoax is due to your partisan and cultural socio-economic bias and getting your information from internet blogs and Facebook posts, and also your lack of comprehension when it comes to science; not because you've done any objective reading of the scholarly articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and interpreted the original data differently from the experts in climatology.





Nope. It is an opinion based on the fact that almost all of AGW "science" is based on computer derived science fiction. There is precious little real science involved.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,511
Reaction score
12,472
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
So I can't help but notice that no one is talking about the elephant in the room....actually the elephant in all the rooms...the oval office...the congress...and the senate.

Now that the money required to support the AGW scam is going to start drying up, does anyone care to make a prediction on how long it will take for the AGW hypothesis to begin to rapidly lose favor in mainstream science in favor of a hypothesis that gives a much more prominent place to natural variation and drops CO2?

Could this be the beginning of some actual science being done with regard to the climate and what drives it?
Climatologists from all varieties of the political spectrum from all over the world make up the scientific consensus that humankind is accelerating the rate at which the global climate is warming. That isn't going to change just because Republicans run this one country.

What's going to change are any policies in place currently to deal with climate and any money to research climate change. And any official recognition of the scientific evidence that supports accelerated climate change.

Your opinion that AGW is some sort of hoax is due to your partisan and cultural socio-economic bias and getting your information from internet blogs and Facebook posts, and also your lack of comprehension when it comes to science; not because you've done any objective reading of the scholarly articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and interpreted the original data differently from the experts in climatology.
Since your new round here how about you answer some basic questions..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.



The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..



So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort, and even given the rise in CO2, there was no increase in that natural rise. NO INCREASE IN SPEED OF WARMING!

The Empirical Evidence does not support your position..
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
Lonnie G Thompson
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Go to:
Abstract
Glaciers serve as early indicators of climate change. Over the last 35 years, our research team has recovered ice-core records of climatic and environmental variations from the polar regions and from low-latitude high-elevation ice fields from 16 countries. The ongoing widespread melting of high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, particularly in low to middle latitudes, provides some of the strongest evidence to date that a large-scale, pervasive, and, in some cases, rapid change in Earth's climate system is underway. This paper highlights observations of 20th and 21st century glacier shrinkage in the Andes, the Himalayas, and on Mount Kilimanjaro. Ice cores retrieved from shrinking glaciers around the world confirm their continuous existence for periods ranging from hundreds of years to multiple millennia, suggesting that climatological conditions that dominate those regions today are different from those under which these ice fields originally accumulated and have been sustained. The current warming is therefore unusual when viewed from the millennial perspective provided by multiple lines of proxy evidence and the 160-year record of direct temperature measurements. Despite all this evidence, plus the well-documented continual increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, societies have taken little action to address this global-scale problem. Hence, the rate of global carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate. As a result of our inaction, we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering.

Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options

Not a hypothesis, but a well supported scientific theory.

I don't want to be accused of using Old Rock's method of character assassination here. But....

Thompson and his wife are poster children for what is wrong in climate science. They refuse to release their data unless forced to by outside authorities. They don't want outsiders to check their work. In some cases they have even 'disappeared' complete ice core projects because the results are inconveniently contrary to the established narrative.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top