This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[Sunsettommy]

Forgive me. When will you be releasing your peer reviewed report?

Forgive me. When will you be releasing your peer reviewed report?

Still making misleading dishonest statements and still falling hard on education and authority fallacies.

Still ignoring the many listed consensus failures I posted.

 

[Robert W]

Forgive me. When will you be releasing your peer reviewed report?

Here is a climate expert scientist doing that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is a climate expert scientist doing that.

This is a gem, going to post it at my Earth section of my forum.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Forgive me. When will you be releasing your peer reviewed report?

Have you released yours ?

Didn't think so.

You don't have one because you have no clue about that which you seem to want to speak on.

Your scorched earth withdrawal has become your trademark.

Your pattern has become pretty predictable.

BTW: You can find those articles if you bothered to look. They exist. Ony you would not know one if it spit in your face.

 

[HikerGuy83]

And he's so kind as to share his conclusions with us here instead of before a panel of climate scientists or a reputable publication. What a guy.

They have been published. What are you talking about? You can find them if you look.

That you are intellectually lazy and are once again on your heels isn't my issue.

Your 3rd grade scorched earth approach to things is pretty boring these days.

Now, go ahead and explain the lack of a ten foot sea rise as predicted by your prophet Al Gore. Please, lay it out for us. Show us what you know. Anything else....not interested in.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You and he have proven all the top scientists wrong,

You don't read to well, do you? (rhetorical question)

I have stated that I am nuetral on the subject as I am still learning. I understand the basic concpets and am quite familiar with the heat models they discuss. How they impact things is still unclear to me. So, I don't go around saying the so-called climate scientists are wrong about this or that.

However, the ones who a making predictions have been 100% wrong.

But you just keep making stuff up.

I have not proved anyone wrong or attempted to do so.

In addition to taking a couple of science classes, you might look in on a logic class. It will help you avoid making a fool of yourself in the future.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Still making misleading dishonest statements and still falling hard on education and authority fallacies.

Still ignoring the many listed consensus failures I posted.

Like I told you BULLDOG is now in the scorched earth withdrawal phase of leaving the thread. Having had his ass handed to him again, he seeks to throw up smoke screens.

He's asking for peer reviewed articles, but has he provided any ?

Have you seen him dissect and explain how global warming is taking place

Have you seen him provide a single front to back (even simple) explanation of what is going on?

Questions are all rhetorical because we know the answers.

Soon it will be...oh, yeah....well it's hot at my house.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Excerpt: A growing number of scientists are voicing concerns about the prevailing climate alarmism that dominates headlines and policy discussions. In 2024, the Global Climate Research Institute surveyed over 1,200 climate scientists worldwide and found that 30% expressed doubts about the severity of commonly cited climate change predictions—a sharp rise from just 15% in 2020. Figures like Dr. Judith Curry, formerly of Georgia Tech, have increasingly taken public stances against what they see as oversimplified narratives, arguing that complex climate systems cannot be reduced to linear projections. This pushback is not isolated; it reflects a broader trend of reputable experts questioning mainstream assumptions. Several scientific conferences in 2024 featured debates between alarmist and skeptical voices, highlighting the growing divide. The shift is also evident in academic publications, where a higher volume of peer-reviewed articles now critically assess long-held climate models and scenarios. This new wave of skepticism is forcing a re-examination of how climate science is communicated and used in policy.

The Rise of Climate Skepticism: ‘More Scientists Are Now Pushing Back on Climate Alarmism’

By Marco Kopinke Excerpt: A growing number of scientists are voicing concerns about the prevailing climate alarmism that dominates headlines and policy discussions. In 2024, the Global Climate Rese…

www.climatedepot.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

Judith Curry was loved by the climate world until she called out the politics. Then she was branded a traitor.

Academics, especially in the world of "who gives a flying fig about climate anyway" can operate with impunity against those who don't agree. And that happens often.

Here is what she posted in her blog when she left Georgia Tech:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

Let me relate an interaction that I had with a postdoc about a month ago. She wanted to meet me, as an avid reader of my blog. She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn't identify as a climate scientist. She says she gets questioned all the time about global warming issues, and doesn't know what to say, since topics like attribution, etc. are not topics that she explores as a scientist. WOW, a scientist that knows the difference! I advised her to keep her head down and keep doing the research that she thinks interesting and important, and to stay out of the climate debate UNLESS she decides to dig in and pursue it intellectually. Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that – personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Liked this one too:

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Liked this one too:

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?

www.scientificamerican.com

15 year old article.

She runs her very popular science blog one of the biggest climate science blogs in the world where varying points of view are allowed there.

Climate Etc. LINK

 

[HikerGuy83]

A couple of scientists go against the grain.......the community is silent.

Despite the significance of their conclusions, Nikolov noted the lack of response from the broader scientific community, attributing it to political and financial interests that may hinder open discussion on the issue. He called for greater transparency and scrutiny of climate data moving forward.

IPCC Data Shows Human Activity Not Causing Global Temperature Rises

Scientists: 'These findings call for a fundamental reconsideration' of the current man-made climate change narrative

scnr.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

15 year old article.

She runs her very popular science blog one of the biggest climate science blogs in the world where varying points of view are allowed there.

Climate Etc. LINK

I know....she left the research world for the reasons she described. They've attempted to neutralize her for years.

She isn't combative. She just found the lying and politics to be to much.

One thing BULLDOG should consider is the amount of money that gets behind this. Reason, the people who are pushing to silence the skeptics are people who have a lot of money tied up in remedial technology. In Tempe, AZ some of these companies are seeing huge contracts as Temp moves towards the dumbass 15 minute city concept.

Hey BULLDOG...you still drive a car?

 

[BULLDOG]

Here is a climate expert scientist doing that.

Interesting discussion, and he seemed well qualified to discuss the subject. He certainly had the credentials needed for his thoughts to be considered, and his conclusions might be valid. None of that has anything to do with my point in this entire discussion. For clarity, I will restate that point in hopes you understand why I believe as I do. and not waste any more of your time or mine on immaterial information.

Basic premise.
I am not a climate scientist. I suppose, if I had enough interest, I could learn the significance of some of the pages of charts, graphs and other data posted to convince me that man made climate change is just a myth. I am not arrogant enough to believe self education will ever put me on equal footing with credentialed scientists, such as the one in the video. Lacking the superior knowledge needed to compare with the top people in the field, I can only rely on the experts. Asking me to evaluate all your charts, etc. would make no more sense than asking me which o-ring to use on the space shuttle.
Conclusion 1: I don't know, don't care about all your charts and graphs.
I can only rely on the opinion of those with superior knowledge

Which experts.
There is disagreement among credible experts in the field. I don't, and never will have the knowledge required to evaluate all the details of each group and pronounce one right and the other wrong (see above). Each group seems equally credentialed and qualified, so I need some way, other than direct evaluation to compare postulates by each group. Sheer numbers comes to mind. All other things being equal, it stands to reason that the larger group should be more likely to be correct. When the larger group is vastly larger the decision becomes easier.
There is one more point of comparison that would sway my choice regardless of the head count. Those who dismiss climate change as a hoax invariably claim the whole idea of climate change is a conspiracy forged by some unnamed powerful nefarious group for some unnamed nefarious reason.
Conclusion 2: More = better
Giant conspiracy theory = batshit crazy.

Post all the charts and graphs you want. Quote dates and ice thickness till your fingers are tired. I don't care.

 

[BULLDOG]

Like I told you BULLDOG is now in the scorched earth withdrawal phase of leaving the thread. Having had his ass handed to him again, he seeks to throw up smoke screens.

He's asking for peer reviewed articles, but has he provided any ?

Have you seen him dissect and explain how global warming is taking place

Have you seen him provide a single front to back (even simple) explanation of what is going on?

Questions are all rhetorical because we know the answers.

Soon it will be...oh, yeah....well it's hot at my house.

You have no idea what my point in this thread is, do you? see #674

 

[BULLDOG]

I know....she left the research world for the reasons she described. They've attempted to neutralize her for years.

She isn't combative. She just found the lying and politics to be to much.

One thing BULLDOG should consider is the amount of money that gets behind this. Reason, the people who are pushing to silence the skeptics are people who have a lot of money tied up in remedial technology. In Tempe, AZ some of these companies are seeing huge contracts as Temp moves towards the dumbass 15 minute city concept.

Hey BULLDOG...you still drive a car?

Yep. I knew you were about due to bring up your conspiracy theory.

 

[EMH]

Yep. I knew you were about due to bring up your conspiracy theory.

"conspiracy theory" = any attempt to disprove or disagree with Zionist Fascist bullshit pushed by the media...

 

[forkup]

I understood it the first time but you completely failed on something that is amazing as you left out a factor many economists commonly use thus again you have no idea what a fool you are.

He called it a PROPORTION of Global GDP

View attachment 1153116

Here is his abstract explaining how he made the figures,

Tracking progress on the economic costs of disasters under the indicators of the sustainable development goals​

Roger Pielke

ABSTRACT​

The Sustainable Development Goals indicator framework identifies as an indicator of progress the objective of reducing disaster losses as a proportion of global gross domestic product. This short analysis presents data on this indicator from 1990. In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP, indicating progress with respect to the SDG indicator. Extending this trend into the future will require vigilance to exposure, vulnerability and resilience in the face of uncertainty about the future frequency and magnitude of extreme events.

LINK

red bolding mine

Already showed you the massive drop of the weather-related deaths since 1920,

View attachment 1153114

I didn't leave it out. I just refused to accept your attempt to rephrase my claim which was that the economic cost of natural disasters is increasing. If you want to express, it in terms of percentage of GDP because that is better for your narrative you can do so. But not as a response to my claim that the costs are going up. Because that wasn't what my graph expressed. That's simply using a red herring.

As for me being a fool. I'm not the one posting graphs that confirms the other person's point. Nor do I need to shift the narrative.

 

[forkup]

A couple of scientists go against the grain.......the community is silent.

Despite the significance of their conclusions, Nikolov noted the lack of response from the broader scientific community, attributing it to political and financial interests that may hinder open discussion on the issue. He called for greater transparency and scrutiny of climate data moving forward.

IPCC Data Shows Human Activity Not Causing Global Temperature Rises

Scientists: 'These findings call for a fundamental reconsideration' of the current man-made climate change narrative

scnr.com

No, the community isn't silent they have been rebutted. The problem they have in this hypothesis is that they go against a basic scientific principle that you test your hypothesis and try to falsify it. If they would have they wouldn't be able to disregard laboratory spectroscopy and line-by-line radiative-transfer models showing how CO₂ and other greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. They wouldn't attempt to make a correlation without a causal mechanism, violating Karl Popper’s criterion that scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable. And they wouldn't have to ignore or downplay empirical observations from satellites, weather balloons, and surface stations consistently measuring greenhouse-gas radiative forcing.

In short, they are simply being bad scientists coming up with a wild hypothesis going completely against the current consensus. A hypothesis for which they propose no mechanism for how it works, they propose no falsifiable test, and they aren't able to demonstrate a predictive success, all things necessary to go from hypothesis to theory. The scientific community doesn't fear an open discussion, they just don't accept any hypothesis as a theory unless it's actually you know.... scientifically tested.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You have no idea what my point in this thread is, do you? see #674

You've never had a point.

You hide behind exerts and completely trust what they tell you.

George Washington did too.