Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2024, 05:42:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 ... 230 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.  (Read 636401 times)
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 14, 2015, 06:30:26 PM
 #2001


I am curious if you understand that the 20 years of no warming means the climate models and the alarmists were wrong.  You try to cover this up by saying "Oh, the heat isn't going into the air, but the sea."


20 years of no warming?  What the hell planet are you living on?  The ten hottest years on record (since we started keeping detailed records in 1880) have all occurred within the last 17 years!  
......
Yes, the temperature rise has not been as severe as people thought it would be in 2001.  Yes, it's because a lot of the heat they thought would be going into the atmosphere has been going into the ocean instead.....


Do you realize what you are saying?  Just take the RSS data and run some numeric series on it.  When you move to a different perspective, this does not invalidate the prior statements.

The claim that "excess heat" is suddenly going into the oceans is  bunko.  "Oh, the air hasn't been warming.  IT'S THE OCEANS!"

As I mentioned, the error was in attempting to derive and propagate a "world average temperature" instead of the correct approach, global latent heat.  But alarmists wanted to keep their world temperature average, ridiculous and anti-scientific though it was.   (Then you can say ridiculous but alarming things such as the Nine Hottest Years).  That is not my error or my problem.  It is the problem of alarmists such as yourself who attempt to make conclusions to their advantage from "thousands of articles" and do not even understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Now you'd like to do what?  What is the measure of Earth's heat?  Only by first defining that can you make a valid argument.

Good article.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
hofor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 14, 2015, 08:25:47 PM
 #2002

Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC?

Surely you see the problem with this question?

Not really. Care to explain?

You have respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" that have published scientific breakthroughs in many fields of science for decades. Are they suddenly wrong on climate change, after even the computer you are using right now is a result of research being published in those and other journals? Is all science just a scam (despite all the things it has done for you)?

You cant say, any group of scientists that doesn't believe in AGW is disreputable and AGW is real because no reputable group of scientists argues that it isn't. Its circular.

Of course this does rely on the assumption that if i told you about a group of scientists and then told you that they are AGW skeptics than you would consider them disreputable because of this fact. But i think that is a pretty safe assumption.
This isn't about who I personally find reputable, but rather about their position and standing in the scientific community.

Let's look at "Nature". One of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. Countless scientific breakthroughs have been published in Nature in most fields of science. Are you saying that a) Nature is being fooled, or that b) they are part of the conspiracy to fool everyone else?

Or the American Geophysical Union - apparently the world's largest scientific society of earth and space scientists - which has published a position statement on AGW. Long story short, they accept the consensus. Are they ignorant, or are they part of the conspiracy?

Of course, none of this explains a strange phenomenon where those who reject AGW will often find the "final nail in the coffin" - a paper from mainstream scientific sources that they claim disprove AGW. It happens quite frequently. There was a new one just the other day. It's a massive contradiction, of course. "Papers that don't support AGW aren't allowed. Just the other day a new paper from a respected scientific journal was published which is yet another nail in the coffin for AGW."

Sigh.
hofor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 14, 2015, 08:39:06 PM
Last edit: April 14, 2015, 08:52:56 PM by hofor
 #2003

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

Hello, Lysenko.
What are you talking about?

Are you saying that you don't even know what "scientific consensus" actually means?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276


View Profile
April 14, 2015, 09:02:44 PM
 #2004


20 years of no warming?  What the hell planet are you living on?  The ten hottest years on record (since we started keeping detailed records in 1880) have all occurred within the last 17 years! 
...

Between the ages of 20 and 30 I was tieing the record for the tallest years of my life set at about age 20.

Turns out that when any system is on a particular secular trajectory, the nearest years tend to be record setters...and the earth has been in a secular warming period since the last ice age.  Actually, that's a little bit unclear as we may be in kind of a funny plateau which has not spiked like the previous major ice ages as far as we can tell from the proxy records, but anyway that's the basic idea.

This principle of how 'records' tend to work is very basic logic, but is sufficiently advanced (amazingly) that it is highly useful to the chicken-little climate cult.  There is an awfully funny video of Dr. Lindzen trying to explain this to a completely retarded politician:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUT7hLtFXIk

I'm not sure if it was more amusing when Lindzen realized he was talking to a person of very limited intellectual ability, or at the end the politician finally seemed to have realized what a jackass he was, but it was to late.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 14, 2015, 09:54:06 PM
 #2005

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

Hello, Lysenko.
What are you talking about?

Are you saying that you don't even know what "scientific consensus" actually means?
Tell you what.  Figure out Lysenko.

As for consensus, I've worked in science and have advanced degrees, as do a lot of the people here.  But we tend not to brag about them or talk down to people.  

But you see, you do not have a valid argument in "consensus."  Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.  Not after the hockey stick debacle.  Not after the email releases.  And not after twenty years of no warming.

But yeah, for kicks and grins, figure out if Lysenko should be emulated - or disgraced.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276


View Profile
April 14, 2015, 09:57:48 PM
 #2006

Quote
Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Firstly, many of the 'thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers' don't say what most Warmistas have heard that they say.
I don't know what these so-called "Warmistas" are saying, but there is a clear consensus that it's warming, and that it's caused by human emissions.

Quote
Secondly, 'thousands' of people confessed to witchcraft over the years and were punished appropriately.  'Thousands' of experts in witchcraft formed a strong 'consensus' about the subject and used state-of-the-art science to deal with the various catastrophes that witches brought about.
So now you're resorting to comparing science with superstition? Even a child is able to tell the difference: Science is based on actual facts and data. It's verified through huge amounts of research. On the other hand, witchcraft is superstition where all it has going for it is blind faith.

You are basically attacking all of science here, and equating it with superstition. Why am I not surprised?

I'm specifically attacking 'climate science' because in my observation, 'climate science' is attacking science itself as I understand it.  Not being a religious person, I rely on science generally and have traditionally had a high regard for science and scientists.  The climate science cult has damaged my feelings about science generally, but not (yet) destroyed them.

And I am totally equating current climate science with superstion, and particularly the Christian religion wherein one can be at least partially absolved of their sins by paying some group for whom the high priests work.  That's but one of a startling (and amusing) list of analogies.

Quote
Thirdly, if one is ejected from the ranks of 'expert' by going against the grain then no, the surviving hypothesis is not especially relevant.
Who has been "ejected"? Scientists disagree on things all the time. And they settle things by publishing papers on the topic. Thousands of such papers on climate have been published by thousands of scientists, and there is a clear consensus. I dare you to name a single respected scientific body that does not accept AGW.

In order to explain away the consensus, you will need to resort to conspiracy theories similar to "Bush was behind 9/11", "Moon Landing Hoax", "vaccines are harmful and were created to kill people", "the aliens were already here, but the world's governments are hiding it". There's simply no other way to explain away the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

By the way, this is a good example of the major contradictions from those who reject science: First it is claimed that their friends are ejected from scientific positions, but then it is claimed that their friends have produced lots of studies disproving AGW. You can't have it both ways. And by the way, Richard Lindzen and a number of other scientists who are still happily publishing scientific papers disprove the claim that you are ejected if you go against the grain.

So not only major contradictions, but also obvious factual errors. It basically looks like you are making up arguments as you go.

Scientists with tenure or outside of academia are well represented among the 'deniers', others tend to speak up near the ends of their careers, and yet others are like Freeman Dyson are so highly regarded and of a particular disposition that they just don't care.

The only reasons I can see for getting into climate science at the start of one's career would be 1) one sees the field as a way to promote a particular unrelated agenda and receive money and accolades for doing totally shoddy work (a-la Dr. Mann), and 2) one is only capable of doing shoddy work but wants to be a 'scientist' anyway.

I took a course in 'environmental engineering' a long time ago.  The teacher just read nonsense and expected us to write it down at lightning speed and regurgitate it for an exam.  After several weeks I told the prof in no uncertain terms that the class was a waste of time and money and I bailed.  We had a professor with a similar style for designing steel structures.  In that case there was a lot of important stuff to learn.  It was unpleasant and difficult, but the material was necessary in order to do a job correctly.  The 'environmental' stuff was absurd, and I could have done a better job of doing rational environmental design work myself with no training whatsoever.  Ultimately I decided that civil engineering was about 80% currupt back scratching (or worse) and the other 20% was boring busywork and did software engineering instead.

...

BTW, everyone knows that GW Bush didn't have much to do with 9/11.  That was mostly Cheney's baby.  And it is a fact that vaccines have been developed with the expressed goal to sterilize humans.  They work by causing abortions very early in the term (the woman has been induced to develop antibodies against certain hormones responsible for sustaining a pregnancy) so depending on one's interpretation of when life begins, it is basically a fact that vaccines 'were created to kill people'.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
April 14, 2015, 10:28:24 PM
 #2007

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

Hello, Lysenko.
What are you talking about?

Are you saying that you don't even know what "scientific consensus" actually means?







The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory


Trofim Lysenko became the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin.  He was an advocate of the theory that characteristics acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed plants, which sharply contradicted Mendelian genetics.  As a result, Lysenko became a fierce critic of theories of the then rising modern genetics.

Under Lysenko’s view, for example, grafting branches of one plant species onto another could create new plant hybrids that would be perpetuated by the descendants of the grafted plant.  Or modifications made to seeds would be inherited by later generations stemming from that seed.  Or that plucking all the leaves off of a plant would cause descendants of the plant to be leafless.

Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines.  Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans.  Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.

Also Lysenko himself arose from a peasant background and developed his theories from practical applications rather than controlled scientific experiments.  This fit the Marxist propaganda of the time holding that brilliant industrial innovations would arise from the working classes through practical applications.  Lysenko’s theories also seemed to address in a quick and timely manner the widespread Soviet famines of the time arising from the forced collectivization of agriculture, rather than the much slower changes from scientific experimentation and genetic heredity.

Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine.  Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award.  Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.

The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught as the only correct theory.  All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism.  Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed.  Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964.


The Theory of Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming


This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming.  That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy.  Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries.  Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.

Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award.  Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory.  Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?

Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.

The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is supposed to represent the best science of the U.S. government on the issue of global warming.  In January, the USGCRP released the draft of its Third National Climate Assessment Report.  The first duty of the government scientists at the USGCRP is to produce a complete picture of the science of the issue of global warming, which is what the taxpayers are paying them for.  But it didn’t take long for the Cato Institute to do the job of the USGCRP with a devastating line by line rebuttal, The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2012, by Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling, Mary J. Hutzler & Craig D. Idso.

Check it out for yourself if you dare.  Both publications are written to be accessible by intelligent laymen.  See which one involves climate science and which one involves political science.

All the climate alarmist organizations simply rubber stamp the irregular Assessment Reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  None of them do any original science on the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.  But the United Nations is a proven, corrupt, power grabbing institution.  The science of their Assessment Reports has been thoroughly rebutted by the hundreds of pages of science in Climate Change Reconsidered, and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, both written by dozens of scientists with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and published by the Heartland Institute, the international headquarters of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.

Again, check it out for yourself.  You don’t have to read every one of the well over a thousand pages of careful science in both volumes to see at least that there is a real scientific debate.

The editors of the once respected journals of Science and Nature have abandoned science for Lysenkoism on this issue as well.  They have become as political as the editorial pages of the New York Times.  They claim their published papers are peer reviewed, but those reviews are conducted on the friends and family plan when it comes to the subject of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.  There can be no peer review at all when authors refuse to release their data and computer codes for public inspection and attempted reconstruction of reported results by other scientists.  They have been forced to backtrack on recent publications relying on novel, dubious, statistical methodologies not in accordance with established methodologies of complex statistical analysis.

Formerly respected scientific bodies in the U.S. and other western countries have been commandeered by political activist Lysenkoists seizing leadership positions.  They then proceed with politically correct pronouncements on the issue of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming heedless of the views of the membership of actual scientists.  Most of what you see and hear from alarmists regarding global warming can be most accurately described as play acting on the meme of settled science.  The above noted publications demonstrate beyond the point where reasonable people can differ that no actual scientist can claim that the science of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming has been settled or that there is a settled “consensus” that rules out reasonable dissent.

Indeed, 31,487 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 Ph.Ds) with degrees in atmospheric Earth sciences, physics, chemistry, biology and computer science have signed a statement that reads: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” See here.  Some consensus.








Real science, of course, is not a matter of “consensus,” but of reason, with skepticism at its core.


The Decline and Fall of the Theory of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming


The alarmist claims of the UN’s IPCC are ultimately based not on scientific observations, but on unvalidated climate models and their projections of future global temperatures on assumptions of continued increases in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning and use of fossil fuels.  The alarmists are increasingly in panic because the past projections of the models are increasingly divergent from the accumulating actual temperature records.  Those models are not real science, but made up science.  And no way we are abandoning the industrial revolution as the Sierra Club is hoping based on model fantasies and fairy tales.

The Economist magazine, formerly in lockstep with the Lysenkoists, shocked them with a skeptical article in March that began with this lede:

“OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .’”

Reality is not complying with the alarmism of the UN’s global warming models, just as it refused to do for Trofim Lysenko.  Remember all that hysteria about melting polar ice caps and the disappearing ice floes for the cute polar bears?  As of the end of March, the Antarctic ice cap was nearly one fourth larger than the average for the last 30 years.  The Arctic ice cap had grown back to within 3% of its 30 year average.  (The formerly declining Arctic ice was due to cyclically warm ocean currents).  Global sea ice was greater than in March, 1980, more than 30 years ago, and also above the average since then.

Remember the alarm about the rising sea level?  Yeah, that has been rising, as it has been since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago.  Just exactly as it has been, at the same rate.  And anyone you know that has been scared by this alarmist propaganda has been successfully played by whatever media the fool has been relying on.

Murderous recent winters in Europe are killing as well belief in alarmist global warming on the continent.  University of Oklahoma Professor and geophysicist David Deming reported in a recent column,

“The United Kingdom had the coldest March weather in 50 years, and there were more than a thousand record low temperatures in the United States. The Irish meteorological office reported that March “temperatures were the lowest on record nearly everywhere.” Spring snowfall in Europe was also high. In Moscow, the snow depth was the highest in 134 years of observation. In Kiev, authorities had to bring in military vehicles to clear snow from the streets.”

In the Northern Hemisphere, Deming adds, “Snow cover last December was the greatest since satellite monitoring began in 1966.”  That reflects similarly bitter cold winters in North America as well.  Despite claims by global warming Lysenkoists that soon children “won’t know what snow is,” on February 6, 2010, a blizzard covered the northeastern U.S. with 20 to 35 inches of snow.  Three days later another 10 to 20 inches were added.

These developments should have been expected from known indisputable facts.  Carbon dioxide is a natural substance essential to the survival of all life on the planet.  It is effectively oxygen for plants, and without plants there would be no food for animals to survive.  Because of the increased atmospheric CO2 agricultural output is already increasing.

CO2 is also a trace gas in the atmosphere, representing only 0.038% of the total atmosphere, up only 0.008% since 1945.  That tiny proportion of the atmosphere is supposed to produce catastrophic global warming that will end all life on the planet?  The historical proxy record shows CO2 concentrations in the distant history of the earth much, much greater than today.  Yet life survived, and flourished.  Moreover, the basic science of global warming is that the temperature increasing effect of increased CO2 concentrations declines as those concentrations increase.  So stop worrying and enjoy the agricultural abundance in your grocery store.

A tip off regarding reality should have been apparent from the dodgy propaganda involved in changing the labeling of the problem from “global warming” to “climate change.”  Of course, Earth has been experiencing climate change since the first sunrise on the planet.  We are not going to abandon the workers’ paradise of capitalism because climate change will continue.

Another tip off should have been the effective admission by global warming alarmists that they cannot defend their position in public debate.  The day the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming died can be dated from the time that one leading alarmist was foolish enough to debate James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, a video of which can be found on the Heartland website at Heartland.org.

Still another tip off should have been the practice of the alarmist new Lysenkoists to respond to dissenting science with ad hominem attacks.  That apparently reflects poor public schooling that never taught that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, as Aristotle taught more than 2,000 years ago.  My how western science has fallen.

The basic science shows that global temperatures are just not very sensitive to CO2 itself.  Even alarmists will concede that.  Where they get their alarm is with the modeling assumption that the CO2 induced temperature increases will produce positive feedbacks that will sharply increase the overall resulting warming.  The better recent science indicates, however, that instead of positive feedbacks, the naturally stable Earth would enjoy negative feedbacks restoring long term equilibrium and stability to global temperatures.

Then there is the man caused, global warming, fingerprint that the U.N.’s models all showed would result in a hot spot of particularly large temperature increases in the upper troposphere above the tropics.  But the incorruptible, satellite monitored, atmospheric temperature record shows no hot spot.  That is further confirmed by modern weather balloons measuring atmospheric temperatures above the tropics.  No hotspot.  No fingerprint.  No catastrophic, man caused global warming.  QED.

The revival of western science requires that the new Lysenkoism be discredited.  That is going to require quite some work, given the extent of the infestation.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/


Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 15, 2015, 12:23:23 AM
 #2008

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

Hello, Lysenko.
What are you talking about?

Are you saying that you don't even know what "scientific consensus" actually means?
Hofor, let me say that you are welcome to this forum, and you will find serious debate here.

That means it's not a pushover, but I think it there is honesty in rigor.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217



View Profile
April 15, 2015, 12:34:16 AM
Last edit: April 15, 2015, 04:26:20 PM by Anon136
 #2009

Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC?

Surely you see the problem with this question?

Not really. Care to explain?

You have respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" that have published scientific breakthroughs in many fields of science for decades. Are they suddenly wrong on climate change, after even the computer you are using right now is a result of research being published in those and other journals? Is all science just a scam (despite all the things it has done for you)?

You cant say, any group of scientists that doesn't believe in AGW is disreputable and AGW is real because no reputable group of scientists argues that it isn't. Its circular.

Of course this does rely on the assumption that if i told you about a group of scientists and then told you that they are AGW skeptics than you would consider them disreputable because of this fact. But i think that is a pretty safe assumption.
This isn't about who I personally find reputable, but rather about their position and standing in the scientific community.

That makes my point even more effectively. You cant have a scientific community populated by people who will consider AGW dissenters as disreputable and then say AGW is obviously real because there are no reputable scientists who dissent against it. It's circular.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 15, 2015, 11:48:58 AM
Last edit: April 15, 2015, 12:12:44 PM by Spendulus
 #2010

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.


Adding to the list.

  • Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.  
  • Not after the hockey stick debacle, where McIntire showed that random data ran through the hockey stick programs would produce....a hockey stick.  
  • Not after the email releases.  
  • Not after twenty years of no warming.
  • Not after the CLOUD experiment series by CERN
  • Not after public warnings by groups of astrophysicists studying the sun on the possible consequences of the current period of low solar sunspots
  • Not after several "surveys" using bogus methodology have attempted to "prove" that a scientific consensus exists, and after the errors in methodology of these surveys have been exposed
  • Not after the IPCC's admission of a lower climate sensitivity in their latest report, unless they are  also Deniers
  • Not after the change by the propagandists from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", implicitly acknowledging the collapse of the "Global Warming Alarmist Paradigm."
  • Not after decades of the propagandists pushing a theory of a "global temperature" which is against the laws of thermodynamics, then implicitly acknowledging their error but going to an equally flawed concept that the heat was going into the ocean. (which was part of which skeptics had been telling them all along)
Today there are several important contributions to our understanding of climate from skeptics or Deniers if you will.

The fact that the climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the first four IPCC reports indicated.
The fact that there is a big influence on climate from the sun, and variability in excess of the variance in it's direct wattage impacting the surface
The fact that solar particles and solar wind influence cloud formation
The fact that the Medieval Warm Period existed
The fact that the Little Ice Age existed

There are many other demonstrable cases where Alarmists have attempted to cover up, repress or eliminate facts contrary to their vision.


You do not have a valid argument in "consensus."  

But I would argue that hyping the concept of "scientific consensus" is bunko, because it has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness of ideas as established by the scientific method, but instead the opinions of a group.

The scientific method does not have within it's structure of null hypothesis, materials, method, procedure, results, conclusion, and summary a part for asking whether the larger body of experts agrees with the hypothesis, materials, method, procedure, results, conclusion and summary.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 15, 2015, 05:50:56 PM
 #2011

The only reasons I can see for getting into climate science at the start of one's career would be 1) one sees the field as a way to promote a particular unrelated agenda and receive money and accolades for doing totally shoddy work (a-la Dr. Mann), and 2) one is only capable of doing shoddy work but wants to be a 'scientist' anyway.

Here's a good laugh.

Following is a quote from a REAL SCIENTIST about REAL climate models.

We're about a year and a half away from the start of New Horizons' scientific mission at Pluto. Scientists are preparing for the encounter by developing models that make predictions for what New Horizons might see. Once we have the data from New Horizons in hand, scientists will be able to use that to figure out which models made the right predictions, and which didn't. At least that's how we hope it will work! The real world is always messier than our simulations.

Now, back to your regular scheduled program,


Earth Climate Models.
How to Double Down on Wrong with Bad Data
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 15, 2015, 06:00:17 PM
 #2012

....
That makes my point even more effectively. You cant have a scientific community populated by people who will consider AGW dissenters as disreputable and then say AGW is obviously real because there are no reputable scientists who dissent against it. It's circular.
Not that the assertions are even TRUE.

What I've seen personally.

- In reading journal articles a great many have near the front a "Glory be to God" sentence or two, in which the authors affirm the TRUEY TRUTHY of CLIMATE CHANGE.  Then they get down to business and show hypothesis, data, method, results.  Usually this has almost no tangible relation to the "big questions" such as "Is man warming the planet up when he makes pancakes and fries bacon?"

- In talking with real scientists, a very very few are Alarmist but there are those.  Most have zero interest in Global Warming and consider it a political subject, not scientific.  If prodded they will voice an opinion usually only in a narrow field in which they are very much an expert.

Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
April 22, 2015, 10:58:04 PM
 #2013




Global Warming Fanatic Bill Nye Celebrating Earth Day With Flights on Air Force One







Global warming fanatic and television host Bill Nye, who shames anyone who questions the "science" behind global warming claims, will be celebrating Earth Day with a ride on Air Force One.




The lack of self-awareness in Nye's tweet really is amazing...

After leaving a trail of greenhouse gases streaked across the sky from Washington D.C. to Florida, Nye will attend an event in the Everglades with President Obama to raise awareness about the dangers of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food. 


With swampy wetlands and alligators as his backdrop, President Barack Obama will use a visit to Florida's Everglades to warn of the damage that climate change is already inflicting on the nation's environmental treasures — and to hammer political opponents he says are doing far too little about it.

Obama's trip to the Everglades on Wednesday, timed to coincide with Earth Day, marks an attempt to connect the dots between theoretical arguments about carbon emissions and real-life implications.



Nye, known as "Bill Nye the Science Guy" by your kids, is worshiped in the American public school system by science teachers across the country.

Update: I should include the fact that Air Force One burns five gallons of fossil fuel per minute.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/04/22/global-warming-fanatic-bill-nye-celebrating-earth-day-with-flights-on-airforce-one-n1988599?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall


Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
April 22, 2015, 11:07:14 PM
 #2014




18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made In 1970 On Earth Day



In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day.

In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article.

Well, it’s now the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 15 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970?



1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”


MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded tomorrow with media hype, and claims like this from the official Earth Day website:


Scientists warn us that climate change could accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival and everything we love. We call on you to keep global temperature rise under the unacceptably dangerous level of 2 degrees C, by phasing out carbon pollution to zero. To achieve this, you must urgently forge realistic global, national and local agreements, to rapidly shift our societies and economies to 100% clean energy by 2050. Do this fairly, with support to the most vulnerable among us. Our world is worth saving and now is our moment to act. But to change everything, we need everyone. Join us.



http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=perry18earthday



Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
April 22, 2015, 11:24:54 PM
 #2015


A reminder for those who did not know...



“Earth Day Co-Founder Killed, Composted Girlfriend”…







Ira Einhorn was on stage hosting the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970. Seven years later, police raided his closet and found the “composted” body of his ex-girlfriend inside a trunk.

A self-proclaimed environmental activist, Einhorn made a name for himself among ecological groups during the 1960s and ’70s by taking on the role of a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie. With his long beard and gap-toothed smile, Einhorn — who nicknamed himself “Unicorn” because his German-Jewish last name translates to “one horn” —advocated flower power, peace and free love to his fellow students at the University of Pennsylvania. He also claimed to have helped found Earth Day.

But the charismatic spokesman who helped bring awareness to environmental issues and preached against the Vietnam War — and any violence — had a secret dark side. When his girlfriend of five years, Helen “Holly” Maddux, moved to New York and broke up with him, Einhorn threatened that he would throw her left-behind personal belongings onto the street if she didn’t come back to pick them up.
And so on Sept. 9, 1977, Maddux went back to the apartment that she and Einhorn had shared in Philadelphia to collect her things, and was never seen again. When Philadelphia police questioned Einhorn about her mysterious disappearance several weeks later, he claimed that she had gone out to the neighborhood co-op to buy some tofu and sprouts and never returned.

It wasn’t until 18 months later that investigators searched Einhorn’s apartment after one of his neighbors complained that a reddish-brown, foul-smelling liquid was leaking from the ceiling directly below Einhorn’s bedroom closet. Inside the closet, police found Maddux’s beaten and partially mummified body stuffed into a trunk that had also been packed with Styrofoam, air fresheners and newspapers.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42711922/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earth-day-co-founder-killed-composted-girlfriend/#.VTgtQ1VVhBd


backup archive link


Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 23, 2015, 12:22:03 AM
 #2016


Update: I should include the fact that Air Force One burns five gallons of fossil fuel per minute.
Per second.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
April 23, 2015, 02:07:02 AM
 #2017


Update: I should include the fact that Air Force One burns five gallons of fossil fuel per minute.
Per second.


April 22, 2014


Obama will burn more than 35,000 gallons of fuel on Earth Day, emitting 375 TONS of carbon dioxide

President took Marine One chopper to Andrews Air Force Base and will fly to Washington state and Tokyo, Japan on Tuesday

'Earth Day is about taking action,' the White House declared shortly after takeoff

Air Force One consumes 5 gallons of jet fuel for every mile it flies

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that burning the fuel emits 21.1 pounds of CO2 per gallon

Total presidential fuel consumption for Earth Day, not including automobile motorcades, is an estimated 35,609 gallons


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610431/Obama-burn-35-000-gallons-fuel-Earth-Day-emitting-375-TONS-carbon-dioxide.html

------------------------------------------
Pretty much the same every year... To save the planet.

Logically, in the spirit of earth day, if I was a green moonbat I would shut all my electronics, cars, AC, internet, etc... off for 1 hour. Every 22 of April.

But I don't love the planet enough to travel in my private jet, all over the place, and use megawatts of power to push my music up in the air through pyramids of marshall amps as a 'green artist', to freeloaders who drove miles to see me... To save the planet.









Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1129


View Profile
April 23, 2015, 04:00:56 AM
 #2018

Lots of people celebrate Earth Day around this time of year, but I have two other events on my calendar.

On April 19, there is the David Koresh Memorial Barbecue, to commemorate religious freedom in America.

And right around this time of year, we also celebrate the anniversary of Richard Nixon's death.

Why yes, I am, in fact, something of a cynic.  It works for me.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217



View Profile
April 23, 2015, 05:16:21 AM
 #2019

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
ABitNut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 764
Merit: 500


I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint


View Profile
April 23, 2015, 05:36:50 AM
 #2020

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

A genuine skeptic. A pleasure to meet you.

The fun part is that the estimation is supposedly made by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Policy is made based on their estimations.

I'm hoping that the reporter made a stupid typing mistake when writing the copy.
Pages: « 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 [101] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 ... 230 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!