jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
bullshit again old socks. those statements have lie after lie and misrepresentation to the groups that participated. I wish for once, you'd at least post something of fact.
This is how millions of people are fooled into believing the AGW crap.
- Thread starter SwimExpert
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,856
- 87,299
- 2,645
You mean back when it was Global Cooling?
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Wow.. McCarthy Et AL...
"
The new paper by McCarthy et al. (2015) Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations has gained some attention around the blogosphere. McCarthy et al. (2015) was discussed by Jo Nova here, at ReportingClimateScience here and LiveScience here. Also see the University of Southampton press release Global climate on verge of multi-decadal change.
As could be expected, the alarmist mainstream media have so far chosen to ignore a paper that discusses an upcoming multidecadal natural suppression of global warming… probably because it indicates the slowdown in global surface warming should continue and it implies the natural variability of the North Atlantic contributed to the global warming we have seen since the mid-1970s."
So much for human induced global warming.... And McCarthy is an avid Mann fan, trying to give proof to the hokey schtick, while he further exposes it as a fraud. Not to mention that it also explains regional sea level increases and decreases. Too Funny....
Source
"
The new paper by McCarthy et al. (2015) Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations has gained some attention around the blogosphere. McCarthy et al. (2015) was discussed by Jo Nova here, at ReportingClimateScience here and LiveScience here. Also see the University of Southampton press release Global climate on verge of multi-decadal change.
As could be expected, the alarmist mainstream media have so far chosen to ignore a paper that discusses an upcoming multidecadal natural suppression of global warming… probably because it indicates the slowdown in global surface warming should continue and it implies the natural variability of the North Atlantic contributed to the global warming we have seen since the mid-1970s."
So much for human induced global warming.... And McCarthy is an avid Mann fan, trying to give proof to the hokey schtick, while he further exposes it as a fraud. Not to mention that it also explains regional sea level increases and decreases. Too Funny....
Source
Last edited:
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,856
- 87,299
- 2,645
...and it's causing ISIS and Al Qaeda too, amiright?!
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
hey Billy, why do we need a global temperature average if all local weather is different? I'm sorry, but I see no value in this entire argument.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
The earth as a system will have a normalized temperature depending on the phase of its current cycle. It is always changing and varying looking for equilibrium. The problem is, man doesn't know all the variables yet and all he can do is hope and poke. This uncertainty gives politicians and fear monger/power mongers a foot hold with people who do not use cognitive and critical thought processes which allow them to evaluate what they are being told.
Currently the "normalized temp" can not be know due to monitoring discrepancies and lack of critical system operational knowledge.
That said, the current use of this term is useless and meaningless..
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,856
- 87,299
- 2,645
Tell them about the Oregon Oysters! The Pacific Blob is eating through their shells and devouring them! How do you think he became a Blob? He gorged himself on Oregon Oysters
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Man induced climate change can not be real. It is something the scientists thought up, and we know that we can't trust them. They are the same ones that came up with evolution, which we all know is a crock. All the science man needs is in Genesis!
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
so in other words a global average has no advantage or value. hmmmmmmmm
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Ah, you Scientologists, always so rational....
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Tell them about the Oregon Oysters! The Pacific Blob is eating through their shells and devouring them! How do you think he became a Blob? He gorged himself on Oregon Oysters
The blob is dying.... rapidly.. with no further heat to add the oceans are now cooling in that region. The PH drop of 0.01 will do little to these encrustations according to recent paper which shows the little buggers adapting to the change just as the Coral reefs are.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
You would be better served to look at your local trends and historical fluctuations and prepare accordingly. The cooling is already setting in. There are two days left in may and we have not reached 80 degrees where I live yet. 53 days past the average date at which we hit that temperature, and most of the US central plains is in the same boat.. The cool temps are playing hell with farmers and planting for the third year in a row.. Its already started. June 1st is approaching and we still have 93% of snow pack in our mountains. A full 40% higher than average and snow remains at just 8500 feet.
Dam those observable facts..
Just sayin...
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
I know that. I do pay attention, I also see this cycle very similar to 1983 to 1988. Another point that is missed with the warmist fools is how the earth cycles weather.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
The average high temp for this region today will be just 47 deg F . A full 35 degrees below normal (1970-2000 average) And its not just this region most of the northern states are in this same boat.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
I find it funny as I watch the cycle of weather transition from fall to winter and winter to spring. The sun is in exactly the same location in each transition cycle, yet the weather is quite a bit different. I'm no scientist, but I can recognize that the axis tip of the earth in the fall to winter transition in the NH seems less stressful on weather patterns as it is when transitioning to spring and the earth axis is moving back.
mamooth
Diamond Member
At this point, the psychological issues behind denialism are much more interesting than any more repetitions of mindless denier conspiracy theories. That is, what causes a normal human to devolve into a denier?
This recent study shows how, compared to regular people, deniers stick to their own echo chamber. They won't speak to anyone except other deniers, so they have little idea of what the real world is like.
Climate Change Debate Fueled by Echo Chambers New Study Finds SESYNC
We also have Lewandowsky's work on it. His first paper showed how conspiracy theorists tend to fall for a wide range of conspiracy theories. That's why most deniers will also tell you how the ozone hole never existed, and that DDT is harmless.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing Therefore Climate Science Is a Hoax
That paper prompted a torrent of conspiracy theories from deniers, thus proving the paper's point, and prompting the Recursive Fury paper.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2014/03/fpsyg-04-00073.pdf
And that prompted the deniers to go on a cult jihad against the publisher. The authoritarian mindset in general, which deniers usually possess, is described here.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Deniers don't show a common personality disorder, but we can often diagnose obvious personality disorders in individual deniers. Some common personality disorders you'll see displayed here are:
1. Histrionic (PAY ATTENTION TO ME!)
2. Narcissistic (Obviously, I, a mere layman, know better than all the scientists of the world, because of this blog I saw.)
3. Paranoid (IT'S ALL A HOAX!)
4. Shizotypal (cuckoo, cuckoo, ...)
5. Anti-social (I HATE YOU &#^#%^ DIRTY WARMERS)
This recent study shows how, compared to regular people, deniers stick to their own echo chamber. They won't speak to anyone except other deniers, so they have little idea of what the real world is like.
Climate Change Debate Fueled by Echo Chambers New Study Finds SESYNC
We also have Lewandowsky's work on it. His first paper showed how conspiracy theorists tend to fall for a wide range of conspiracy theories. That's why most deniers will also tell you how the ozone hole never existed, and that DDT is harmless.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing Therefore Climate Science Is a Hoax
That paper prompted a torrent of conspiracy theories from deniers, thus proving the paper's point, and prompting the Recursive Fury paper.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2014/03/fpsyg-04-00073.pdf
And that prompted the deniers to go on a cult jihad against the publisher. The authoritarian mindset in general, which deniers usually possess, is described here.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Deniers don't show a common personality disorder, but we can often diagnose obvious personality disorders in individual deniers. Some common personality disorders you'll see displayed here are:
1. Histrionic (PAY ATTENTION TO ME!)
2. Narcissistic (Obviously, I, a mere layman, know better than all the scientists of the world, because of this blog I saw.)
3. Paranoid (IT'S ALL A HOAX!)
4. Shizotypal (cuckoo, cuckoo, ...)
5. Anti-social (I HATE YOU &#^#%^ DIRTY WARMERS)
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Your tinfoil hat is to dam tight... Loosen it up hairball..
And what is the relevance to the OP?
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
This Saturday and Sunday in Chicago will see highs in the 50s low 60s some 20 degrees below average. But that's local. The flooding in Texas now that is global. Dude I laugh so flippin hard at these hypocrites. every day they are hypocrites. every day.
SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,684
- 280
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #39
Boy, a lot of work for something you all claim didn't happen. HmmmmmmmmmmmNow ol' Pig, there never was a consensus on a 'new ice age'.
What 1970s science said about global cooling
A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.
So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.
The sound byte has been circulating quite a bit lately with much huzzah. And probably it's in part the fault of skeptics that it's become just another sandbag to be tossed back and forth as if mere mass were enough to make a case, because it was the more obtuse skeptics who began running wild with it when those of us more informed first began bringing it up in earnest.
The whole "debunking the myth" line is the real myth. That there was a serious belief in the scientific community that the world was going to enter another glacial period is fact. That this belief was held by a significant portion of scientists is fact. The link attempts to debunk the "myth" but in doing so they really just demonstrate a propensity of shallow thinking where they lay bare some of the inherent weaknesses of modern day climate science, yet double down on the current day's "conclusions" despite those weaknesses, all while analyzing the recent history with dubious means that fail to account for the circumstances that they themselves explain.
The link is absolutely correct when it begins by saying that "climate science" as we think of it did not exist in the 1970s. They are correct in explaining that climate science was in its infancy, as scientists from multiple disciplines were independently engaged in studying small fragments with little to no intention or interest in producing cohesive results with others who were involved in the same tangent in other fields. This reality of the nature of climate science at the time is one worthy of being recognized and understood if one wishes to truly grasp the big picture.
However, the authors of the link seem to quickly forget and abandon all of this with their methodology of "debunking" that follows. They proceed to look for research papers that would declare "smoking gun" type scenarios predicting global cooling. They find few. Which is not at all surprising, because as they said themselves, there was no real "climate science" of the day. This issue, in and of itself, debunks the author's attempt to debunk, because they are attempting a methodology that does not even confront the situation. It's the equivalent of looking for blood stains on a suspect's white shirt when eye witnesses stated that the perp was wearing a black shirt. The lack of stains on the white shirt cannot debunk the suspect's guilt because such an investigation doesn't even confront the situation.
Still, there is some worthwhile information found in the link. The link rightly points out that what we know as "climate science" is a field that has been hodge-podged together from multiple other disciplines, some of which are not readily or easily compatible with each other. "Climate science" is a mixture of hard and soft sciences, and a rather unique field because of it. Its genesis is firmly anchored in political interests. While the link says that climate science was in its infancy in the 70s, the truth is that the field is still in its infancy. That CO2 could single handedly cause significant and sudden geological and climactic shifts was foundational for the formation of the field. The singular field of "climate scientists" who eventually emerged all did so from a selective crop of one-minded individuals who readily adopted the assumption that CO2 would single handedly cause significant and sudden geological and climactic shifts.
As was said earlier in the thread, it's in the policy statement. Violations of company policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
nothing can be said about this post. it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. so zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Zohran Mamdani's wife appears to have used the N-word and celebrated Palestinian terrorists- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 4
-
Looking at Women Differently as I Get Old- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 11
-
