The Uninhabitable Earth

[flacaltenn]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Don't care. The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is real. Now, if you can show that thousands of them are considering suicide for their decision, you might have something.

Convinced WHAT'S REAL??? 8DegC by 2100 as it was prior to 2000? Or the 2 or 3DegC prediction from the LAST IPCC farce?? All the estimates of critical parameters and predictions have GONE DONE constantly since this "big scare" started.. And there's been no monthly new predictions of 2100 temps or sea levels BECAUSE they are not as gloomy or hysterical as they were in 2000.. Or certainly 1980...

IN FACT -- MOST climate scientists AGREE that that the public and media have been MISLED about the science.. In the most comprehensive survey of climate scientists BY climate scientists and one of the few that it actually POLLED (not divined from abstracts) --- THE VAST MAJORITY agree with exactly what I told you above... From Bray and von Storch 2005 ---

So Bulldoggy -- WHAT do climate scientists agree on again? And what do they say aboutt the temperature anomaly is gonna be in 2100??

 

[BULLDOG]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

This made me ROFL... Because my favorite pic of Phil Jones comes from PBS special on GWarming showing him AT WORK in his office... This is probably circa 2002 or so.,.. So when Phil Jones admits the "data is not well organized" --- I can demonstrate WHY that's hysterically funny...

This is not a farce.. I grabbed the frames from that PBS documentary because I was FLOORED that ANY SCIENTIST works that way in the 21st century....

Phil Jones... At work.. With the "climate data" he can't provide to others for verification....

From the same documentary -- the East Anglia "Climate Library"... This is Medieval working conditions at best.. OSHA would probably label the place a health and safety issue...

You understand NOW why his work and fundamental raw data is "Not well organized"???? And can't be verified???

I had a physics professor whose office was almost that bad. Does that mean the laws of thermodynamics are fake? Phil Jones is just one person. Just disregard him if you want to.The vast majority of climate scientists still think our climate problem is real.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the related answer to what climate think about the science being distorted for political/social reasons..

You see many respondents saying that the general GW discourse is driven by scientific findings? No you don't. The vast majority agree with me when I say that public/political sentiment drives the media/political frenzy.. NOT SCIENCE -- and especially NOT when political hacks like the one in the OP write fictional HORROR stories about Climate futures that they haven't actually invested the time into understanding..

 

[BULLDOG]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Don't care. The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is real. Now, if you can show that thousands of them are considering suicide for their decision, you might have something.

Convinced WHAT'S REAL??? 8DegC by 2100 as it was prior to 2000? Or the 2 or 3DegC prediction from the LAST IPCC farce?? All the estimates of critical parameters and predictions have GONE DONE constantly since this "big scare" started.. And there's been no monthly new predictions of 2100 temps or sea levels BECAUSE they are not as gloomy or hysterical as they were in 2000.. Or certainly 1980...

IN FACT -- MOST climate scientists AGREE that that the public and media have been MISLED about the science.. In the most comprehensive survey of climate scientists BY climate scientists and one of the few that it actually POLLED (not divined from abstracts) --- THE VAST MAJORITY agree with exactly what I told you above... From Bray and von Storch 2005 ---

So Bulldoggy -- WHAT do climate scientists agree on again? And what do they say aboutt the temperature anomaly is gonna be in 2100??

Unfortunately, I'm not a climate scientist, and as far as I know you aren't either. If I am mistaken, please present your credentials. Your charts and stuff mean nothing to me because I am not qualified to evaluate them, or even know if they are even pertinent to the discussion, because of that whole not being a climate scientist thing. The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

I have seen more EKG readouts than most, and after having so many explained to me, I have a general idea what I'm looking at. However, if a qualified cardiologist tells me my interpretation is wrong, I'm not going to argue with him. If the vast majority of cardiologists looked at that readout, and agreed with the first, it would be stupid of me to try to explain where they were wrong, or say one of them had a messy office, so I must be right. I see the climate change issue in a similar light. I don't have the expertise to prove them wrong, so I have to rely on the best in the field. Who has the best credentials.

Of course, if you are a trained climate scientist, I will certainly consider your opinion on climate change along with the vast majority of other climate scientists, or, I could just rely on Alex Jones for my information like you seem to do..

 

[fncceo]

The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

Who are the leading climate scientists in the world and for whom do they work. To whom are they beholden for their grant monies?

 

[BULLDOG]

The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

Who are the leading climate scientists in the world and for whom do they work. To whom are they beholden for their grant monies?

I don't have their names, or all their financial information, but I do know there are enough to convince 175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change. That's gotta be more than a few.

 

[fncceo]

175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change.

Politicians who run countries and scientists who gather data and formulate hypotheses operate by two -- completely different -- sets of rules.

One dedicated to discovery of truth, the other dedicated to the acquisition of power.

Historically speaking, we don't see countries using scientific research for their own political goals particularly helpful to humanity.

 

[BULLDOG]

175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change.

Politicians who run countries and scientists who gather data and formulate hypotheses operate by two -- completely different -- sets of rules.

One dedicated to discovery of truth, the other dedicated to the acquisition of power.

Historically speaking, we don't see countries using scientific research for their own political goals particularly helpful to humanity.

You think the leaders of the entire 175 different countries are using global climate change for nefarious reasons? You know that's just nuts, right?

 

[fncceo]

175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change.

Politicians who run countries and scientists who gather data and formulate hypotheses operate by two -- completely different -- sets of rules.

One dedicated to discovery of truth, the other dedicated to the acquisition of power.

Historically speaking, we don't see countries using scientific research for their own political goals particularly helpful to humanity.

You think the leaders of the entire 175 different countries are using global climate change for nefarious reasons? You know that's just nuts, right?

There is nothing nefarious about the acquisition of power. Every person who has every done it in the history of our civilization has done it for the greater good (at least that is what they believe).

A huge, man-generated global disaster that can be averted if we only give politicians more power would seem to be a heaven-sent opportunity for anyone seeking to gain power -- for the good of humanity, of course.

 

[BULLDOG]

175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change.

Politicians who run countries and scientists who gather data and formulate hypotheses operate by two -- completely different -- sets of rules.

One dedicated to discovery of truth, the other dedicated to the acquisition of power.

Historically speaking, we don't see countries using scientific research for their own political goals particularly helpful to humanity.

You think the leaders of the entire 175 different countries are using global climate change for nefarious reasons? You know that's just nuts, right?

There is nothing nefarious about the acquisition of power. Every person who has every done it in the history of our civilization has done it for the greater good (at least that is what they believe).

A huge, man-generated global disaster that can be averted if we only give politicians more power would seem to be a heaven-sent opportunity for anyone seeking to gain power -- for the good of humanity, of course.

If you say so.

 

[fncceo]

175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change.

Politicians who run countries and scientists who gather data and formulate hypotheses operate by two -- completely different -- sets of rules.

One dedicated to discovery of truth, the other dedicated to the acquisition of power.

Historically speaking, we don't see countries using scientific research for their own political goals particularly helpful to humanity.

You think the leaders of the entire 175 different countries are using global climate change for nefarious reasons? You know that's just nuts, right?

There is nothing nefarious about the acquisition of power. Every person who has every done it in the history of our civilization has done it for the greater good (at least that is what they believe).

A huge, man-generated global disaster that can be averted if we only give politicians more power would seem to be a heaven-sent opportunity for anyone seeking to gain power -- for the good of humanity, of course.

If you say so.

I just said so.

 

[MisterBeale]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

This made me ROFL... Because my favorite pic of Phil Jones comes from PBS special on GWarming showing him AT WORK in his office... This is probably circa 2002 or so.,.. So when Phil Jones admits the "data is not well organized" --- I can demonstrate WHY that's hysterically funny...

This is not a farce.. I grabbed the frames from that PBS documentary because I was FLOORED that ANY SCIENTIST works that way in the 21st century....

Phil Jones... At work.. With the "climate data" he can't provide to others for verification....

From the same documentary -- the East Anglia "Climate Library"... This is Medieval working conditions at best.. OSHA would probably label the place a health and safety issue...

You understand NOW why his work and fundamental raw data is "Not well organized"???? And can't be verified???

Perhaps a global carbon tax and more money would help him get organized and clear this question up?

 

[fncceo]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

This made me ROFL... Because my favorite pic of Phil Jones comes from PBS special on GWarming showing him AT WORK in his office... This is probably circa 2002 or so.,.. So when Phil Jones admits the "data is not well organized" --- I can demonstrate WHY that's hysterically funny...

This is not a farce.. I grabbed the frames from that PBS documentary because I was FLOORED that ANY SCIENTIST works that way in the 21st century....

Phil Jones... At work.. With the "climate data" he can't provide to others for verification....

From the same documentary -- the East Anglia "Climate Library"... This is Medieval working conditions at best.. OSHA would probably label the place a health and safety issue...

You understand NOW why his work and fundamental raw data is "Not well organized"???? And can't be verified???

Perhaps a global carbon tax and more money would help him get organized and clear this question up?

A few Trillions might sort it out.

 

[Crick]

I am trying to get everyone to understand the risk we face and act to stop it. If you think the proper response to news of this sort is to say your prayers and then kiss your ass goodbye, then I'm afraid you're a useless coward and there's not much point talking to you.

That response was not well thought out.

I disagree.

I live in Missouri...deep in tornado alley.

I grew up in the Kansas suburbs of Kansas City.

But, my house was built in 1915 and it's still standing, as my town hasn't been hit by a devastating tornado in a century. So people here have a choice, each with compelling data sets from which to draw conclusions.

The house I grew up in was built in 1949 and has never been hit by a tornado. But my junior high school was (while we were in it). My sister's place in Manhattan, Ks (K-State) was heavily damaged by a tornado that ripped a swath of destruction through the middle of town.

A person who believes the threat is significant might built a storm shelter, make an emergency plan, or buy emergency supplies to be prepared. A person who thinks the threat is overstated will probably do nothing.

There is a large qualitative difference between the threat posed by tornadoes and that posed by global warming. Tornado damage is constrained to the immediate vicinity of storms. Dismissing the threat is simply a matter of playing the odds. That is not the case with global warming. Global warming will affect every square inch of the planet. There is no escaping it. There is no chance that it won't impact you.

Additionally, I know of nothing one can do to prevent the occurrence of tornadoes. We can do something to minimize global warming. It's too late to stop it from hurting us severely, but the faster we reduce and eliminate our carbon emissions, the sooner it will slow and stop and begin to cool.

Is the person who builds or purchases a storm shelter a coward?

A coward? You have an odd way of thinking about this. Are you attempting to suggest that you're brave for doing without? I would say that the person who doesn't make certain their house meets building codes, who doesn't make preparations before the season and before storms (trimming trees, storing loose materials, getting away from windows, into basements or bathrooms) is being stupid. Those who do are being smart.

Of course not...only a complete idiot would take the position that a person making preparations to combat a threat they believe could kill them or alter their life forever is a coward.

You completely misunderstand my comment about being a coward. AGW is a man-made effect. It can be stopped my human action. To simply give up and, as I said, recommend nothing more than kissing your ass goodbye, is cowardly. You gave me two choices: prepare for the end or do nothing. Well, go fuck yourself, I'm taking the other option: I intend to fight this tooth and nail and have been doing so for several years.

One step beyond this, if I tell my new neighbor about the threat of tornadoes in Missouri and they ask about storm shelters...which response do you believe will make the neighbor take the threat more seriously:

"Well, I have one."

...or...

"I don't have one."

Let me suggest you give them a different answer altogether. Obviously, the threat exists. Explain to them as best you can what the odds might be of suffering damage from a tornado. Let them decide whether or not they wish to play it safe or play the odds.

See my point? If you and others like you actually BELIEVED the world was going to end due to climate change...YOU would personally be doing something to mitigate it's effects on you and those you love INDEPENDENT of society...which is mostly doing nothing.

I see a point that is dramatically in error. As I explained, global warming is qualitatively different than a tornado. YOU need to objectively examine the evidence supporting AGW and, if you can find any, the evidence refuting it. Decide whether or not you believe AGW is an accurate description of the behavior of our climate. It you decide that it is, for the good of your children, their children and their children, you need to take whatever actions you can to help stave off disaster. Reduce your own emissions. Vote for political candidates that will work to reduce emissions. Buy products with the smallest possible carbon footprints. Provide homes for wildlife and insects. Plant a tree. Tell your friends and your coworkers around the water cooler that you have realized AGW is a threat that requires immediate action on all our parts. Urge them to join you. Urge everyone to join you.

And you aren't...which leads the rest of us to believe that you really don't believe it. It's either virtue signalling, the result of childhood indoctrination into the Global Warming Cult, or there is another ulterior motivation for your Chicken Little rhetoric.

Try again. Be brave. Act.

 

[skookerasbil]

The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

Who are the leading climate scientists in the world and for whom do they work. To whom are they beholden for their grant monies?

I don't have their names, or all their financial information, but I do know there are enough to convince 175 out of the 195 countries on earth to take measures to combat global climate change. That's gotta be more than a few.

"Take measures.....to combat climate change"



Define "measures" s0n!!

That's like a slug celebrating getting through 1/2 of the Lincoln Tunnel in NYC on his way to California!

Take a bow s0n!!


If the United States disappeared from the planet tomorrow it would lower the earth's temperature by 1/10 of one degree by 2100!

Fucking dOy

 

[Wyatt earp]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Don't care. The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is real. Now, if you can show that thousands of them are considering suicide for their decision, you might have something.

so you need scientist now to convince you the climate changes?


its been obvious to 99% of us since we were in diapers

 

[Crick]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Don't care. The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is real. Now, if you can show that thousands of them are considering suicide for their decision, you might have something.

so you need scientist now to convince you the climate changes?


its been obvious to 99% of us since we were in diapers

Anyone bringing up "Climategate" as an argument against the validity of AGW is ignorant or just desperately lacking real data. From Wikipedia:

Content of the documents

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate-change research, covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[27] According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[20]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[28] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[20] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[28] with "climate sceptic" websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[19] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[29] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[30][31]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This "decline" referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[31] John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[32] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[33][34] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[35]

 

[flacaltenn]

="BULLDOG, post: 21876189, member: 49372"]Yes, it's better to rely on the experts like Alex Jones, and Steve Doocy for real science.

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Don't care. The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is real. Now, if you can show that thousands of them are considering suicide for their decision, you might have something.

Convinced WHAT'S REAL??? 8DegC by 2100 as it was prior to 2000? Or the 2 or 3DegC prediction from the LAST IPCC farce?? All the estimates of critical parameters and predictions have GONE DONE constantly since this "big scare" started.. And there's been no monthly new predictions of 2100 temps or sea levels BECAUSE they are not as gloomy or hysterical as they were in 2000.. Or certainly 1980...

IN FACT -- MOST climate scientists AGREE that that the public and media have been MISLED about the science.. In the most comprehensive survey of climate scientists BY climate scientists and one of the few that it actually POLLED (not divined from abstracts) --- THE VAST MAJORITY agree with exactly what I told you above... From Bray and von Storch 2005 ---

So Bulldoggy -- WHAT do climate scientists agree on again? And what do they say aboutt the temperature anomaly is gonna be in 2100??

Unfortunately, I'm not a climate scientist, and as far as I know you aren't either. If I am mistaken, please present your credentials. Your charts and stuff mean nothing to me because I am not qualified to evaluate them, or even know if they are even pertinent to the discussion, because of that whole not being a climate scientist thing. The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

I have seen more EKG readouts than most, and after having so many explained to me, I have a general idea what I'm looking at. However, if a qualified cardiologist tells me my interpretation is wrong, I'm not going to argue with him. If the vast majority of cardiologists looked at that readout, and agreed with the first, it would be stupid of me to try to explain where they were wrong, or say one of them had a messy office, so I must be right. I see the climate change issue in a similar light. I don't have the expertise to prove them wrong, so I have to rely on the best in the field. Who has the best credentials.

Of course, if you are a trained climate scientist, I will certainly consider your opinion on climate change along with the vast majority of other climate scientists, or, I could just rely on Alex Jones for my information like you seem to do..

You have no clue how science is organized and works. Ocasio-Cortez is a waitress with a bogus economics degree hawking a grand glitter farting Green Raw Meal because she KNOWS the world is gonna end in 12 years and she wants to SCARE THE PISS out of 5th graders..

Climate science is perhaps the most INTERDISCIPLINARY science that ever stalked the planet. You can write as a climate scientist on anything from rodents to atmospheric physics. It could not EXIST without about 10 important scientific specialties.. It has been largely based on data analysis and modeling which IS my specialty for my career.. I've found signals and images that nobody else had been able to do. From ocean acoustics to missile launch sites to breast tumors. My career tools have been used in over a dozen specialty disciplines and are VERY applicable to reading climate science.

ANYONE that can read thru a monthly issue of Scientific American can read and interpret climate science. And the fact that Scientific American has readership by virtually all of the science specialties shows how fungible (tradeable) science tools and skill are. I've had to learn specialties in MANY fields during my career, but I have valid credentials in Earth science from designing the image processing systems and algorithms STILL in use for analyzing Earth resources from space. Algorithms that include the EARLIEST "sea ice" calculators and land cover classifiers. So NONE of what I read in climate science intimidates me.. It's actually mostly 80% data preparation/analysis.. No more intimidating that learning marine mammal biology and communication than I've done for research contracts in the past.

Virtually no serious research scientist I've worked with has the "hoarder" office of Phil Jones. THat's just appalling. But it's NOT germane. What IS germane is that East Anglia has REPEATEDLY restricted access to their data and data prep methods for replication. That is the "coin of the realm" in science and how "theories" get verified...

This whole Clown convention has been skewed by a dozen or so "activists in labcoats" giving the media and the public a "catastrophic" interpretation of GW science. They gave cover to politicians and partisan journalists to LIE about what is known and generally agreed upon.. And THAT is what those graphs I gave you show.. The VAST MAJORITY of people working in this field object to the hype and distortions that had fueled this train. And it's over.. Those days are gone. You don't hear credible people hawking DOOM and destruction monthly in the media now. Except for those waitresses serving up Green Raw Meals so that they can control the entire economy and well-being of every citizen....

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

 

[Oddball]

Time for a reprise...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- MOST of those "dirty dozen" activists in labcoats are either DIRECT govt career employees or working at Govt funded centers of learning. The top 4 or 5 were directly in charge of the 3 major agencies that collect and collate ALL the fundamental Earth temperature data..