Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2019, 07:34:39 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: We're not cutting co2 emissions any time soon  (Read 131 times)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1982



View Profile
October 15, 2019, 08:52:53 AM
 #21

I think I'll stick with actual real scientists. I know very well what they're like and how they think.

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue. the media and the IPCC are distorting this to make it seem as if all agree with the climate-scare position, which should give pause for why that's at all necessary, considering that perspective is all supposedly based on sound undeniable facts.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571340879
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571340879

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571340879
Reply with quote  #2

1571340879
Report to moderator
1571340879
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571340879

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571340879
Reply with quote  #2

1571340879
Report to moderator
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 262


View Profile
October 15, 2019, 09:32:23 AM
 #22

I think I'll stick with actual real scientists. I know very well what they're like and how they think.

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.
No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet. For example, pick some area of glaciers melting and there are some areas (like greenland melting due to it) where they all agree, and others areas not yet. As I had pointed out before from those Shell and Exxon documents, they knew all the way back in the mid 80s, that it wouldn't be until the turn of the century that they'd really start to be able to see what the data really said. And we're still in the area of time where things are in flux. But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1982



View Profile
October 16, 2019, 11:42:36 AM
 #23

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.
No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet.

agree on what? do they agree on why? (they do not)


But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.

I see data that says most of the data you're seeing is cherry-picked or otherwise exaggerated

are we both willfully blind?
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 262


View Profile
October 16, 2019, 12:20:19 PM
 #24

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.
No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet.

agree on what? do they agree on why? (they do not)


But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.

I see data that says most of the data you're seeing is cherry-picked or otherwise exaggerated

are we both willfully blind?
I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell me your sources of data. Cause every time I look for stuff, I don't find anything that refutes the overall agreement that man is causing climate change via CO2. I see graphics that compare solar activity. Temperature clearly goes up and up. Graph of core samples from antartic. Shows sine wave type activity for CO2 and then from 1950 on it just goes way up higher than ever before. Graph after graph, data set after data set. And never anything that credibly refutes those things.

Yesterday I looked into something like 10 "scientists" that deny it, none of which were actual climate scientists. Technically, some don't. They're "skeptical". Or don't think the science is there enough yet. Then there was a guy who was shown to have lied about his credentials amongst other things. Another guy who was promoting his own ideas as to what is changing climate. He predicted we'd enter a cooling phase last year. And then the "best" was a guy who'd written a book. One graph he used had previously been shown to be bogus and the originators of it had withdrawn it. Another graph he put data points in the wrong lace to skew things. He claims volcanoes are the cause. Scientists with the data said, no, humans are doing 130 times what volcanoes are doing. He shot back and said well you're not taking into account undersea volcanoes. They replied back, no, our data includes that. That's what I find whenever I go looking. So please. Please do show me where you're getting all your info.

This is something you might be interested in. Muller was labeled as a denier although he would say "skeptic" and found fault with the data. Thing I found humorous is that the Koch brothers were one of those that funded the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

And here's an interesting interview from him where he talks about a bunch of things, including the exaggeration you mentioned.

https://www.sumologic.com/podcast/climate-science-data-richard-muller/
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1982



View Profile
Today at 12:51:05 AM
 #25

Why don't you tell me your sources of data. Cause every time I look for stuff, I don't find anything that refutes the overall agreement that man is causing climate change via CO2. I see graphics that compare solar activity. Temperature clearly goes up and up. Graph of core samples from antartic. Shows sine wave type activity for CO2 and then from 1950 on it just goes way up higher than ever before. Graph after graph, data set after data set. And never anything that credibly refutes those things.

the climate scientist who produced the original hockey stick graph lost his libel case in court a month ago.


he claimed a skeptic was libeling him. the judge asked him to present the datasets he used. He refused.


judge threw his case out, and ruled that he pay the supposed slanderer's legal fees.


he was afraid of presenting the data, and showing how he used that to produce the well-known temperature chart.


Real (credible) scientists present a far more complicated trend for global temperatures over the C20th, where the average temperature does indeed increase from the 1950's up to today. But that's not the peak, the peak was in the 1930's.

The whole Koch Bros thing is a reverse psychology trick, oil industry people actually stand to gain alot from IPCC recommendation. You shouldn't trust a single word coming out of their lying mouths, the oil producers have been a very important part of every war (and the overall genocide) for the last 100 years.
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 262


View Profile
Today at 06:11:46 AM
 #26

the climate scientist who produced the original hockey stick graph lost his libel case in court a month ago.

he claimed a skeptic was libeling him. the judge asked him to present the datasets he used. He refused.
He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date. If you look into the other guy, you find someone that has been in several libel type cases against him. Where the heck do you get your information from.

he was afraid of presenting the data, and showing how he used that to produce the well-known temperature chart.
That data had been given to other scientists to use and confirm/disprove his results so thinking he's "afraid" to let others look at it is just false.

Real (credible) scientists present a far more complicated trend for global temperatures over the C20th, where the average temperature does indeed increase from the 1950's up to today. But that's not the peak, the peak was in the 1930's.
Who and where? There have been many new graphs using the same data, modifying it, adding to it, using completely different sets of data, different techniques and they all end up showing basically the same thing. That's what I find so point me at your information.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1982



View Profile
Today at 11:58:15 AM
 #27

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date.

real court cases do not run out of time, you're making that up, aren't you?

he lost the case, when he could've proven how true it was by just presenting the data.
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 262


View Profile
Today at 12:58:42 PM
Last edit: Today at 01:12:50 PM by Viper1
 #28

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date.

real court cases do not run out of time, you're making that up, aren't you?

he lost the case, when he could've proven how true it was by just presenting the data.
No I'm not making it up. There was some deadline and apparently the legal team dragged their feet and the judge dismissed it. What's it called? Summary judgment that he has to pay the legal fees or something or other. He can appeal.

Edit: So conflicting info and I suspect without seeing the real court documents it's hard to tell. What I see is that Mann did refuse which apparently in this sort of case is a legal ploy to have the court try and get the other party to negotiate with you to come up with a resolution. That dragged on for years. Then the court pressured him or something and Mann said he would produce the data but only had 21 days and it passed and so the case was dismissed. It's not all finalized yet as far as I can tell and it can be appealed in some way so who the hell knows.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!