- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 10, 2014 at 7:40 am #612628
HMC RichParticipanthttp://www.truthrevolt.org/news/no-global-warming-17-years-11-months
Who wants to get on the Global Cooling Bandwagon again?
September 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm #813244
wakefloodParticipantHa! Monckton is as much of a trained scientist as I am. Real scientists beg to differ with his misrepresentations of their work. Which is a diplomatic way of saying he’s a fraud.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm
To paraphrase Ghostbusters: “The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, Mr. Monckton.”
September 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm #813245
SmittyParticipantWe can’t win this Rich, it will just take time (which the naysayers of course say we don’t have any of).
Now that BOTH the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are growing they claim it is caused by the change in wind patterns brought on by – wait for it – global warming.
There is always an “answer”.
September 10, 2014 at 2:23 pm #813246
JoBParticipanthope you naysayers are enjoying the Georgia like rains we have had recently
i can guarantee you that friends and family in Nevada and Arizona have a new understanding of the term monsoon.
“”In nine out of 10 cases, the models indicated that climate change raised the risk by more than 20 percent, and in two out of three cases, by more than 90 percent,” said Pardeep Pall, a computer systems engineer with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and lead author of the study, which appeared in the journal Nature in 2011.
“Think of the weather as a roll of the dice, and flood as being a six,” he added. “If you roll the dice, you will have a one in six chance of a six happening. But imagine if the dice is somehow loaded toward more sixes. We’ve loaded the climate toward more sixes.””
http://www.livescience.com/29029-climate-floods.html
wake up and smell the roses fellas…
September 10, 2014 at 3:20 pm #813247
JoBParticipantwake brought up a good point in a manner that perhaps caused those who were jumping up and down with joy at Monkton’s article published in one of those conservative websites to dismiss it…
Although he does have some background in statistics… Monckton has no background at all in science… and his understanding of the statistical models betrays that lack of context.
can he manipulate numbers? yes?
does he understand what he is manipulating?
that’s more than questionable.
it’s better when you cite experts to cite someone who is actually and expert in the field.
September 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm #813248
VBDParticipant“Global warming” creates climate change. It’s NOT a case of “getting hot everywhere”, but instead seeing change in climate patterns with a mean increase in global temperature. So observing changes in weather patterns is what you would expect.
Consider this: Say perhaps there is a cold region that has an average winter temperature of 5F, and very low precipitation. What if the temperature jumped up 5 degrees and precipitation increased as well. What would be the result?? Well, the temp would go up to 10F and it would snow a lot more. YES: it got warmer, but you have more snow!
Is that REALLY so hard to understand?
September 10, 2014 at 3:33 pm #813249
wakefloodParticipantSeptember 10, 2014 at 3:45 pm #813250
JoBParticipantVBD..
there you go with that context stuff ;->
and no..it really isn’t so hard to understand.
We are very lucky here .. climate change is predicted to create mostly positive changes for us..
especially if you like to grow tomatoes and peppers :)
September 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm #813251
wakefloodParticipantAnd dislike seafood of any kind, JoB? ;-)
September 10, 2014 at 4:46 pm #813252
VBDParticipantOh, and while I’m in a mood to rant:
A common sort of anti-climate change statement is to say the weather in Antarctica is _______…. You know, hotter or colder, or dryer, etc.
Antarctica is a continent. NOT a small island at the south pole. It has multiple climates like any other continent. What is the climate of North America? There isn’t one. There are many.
Even in Washington State, a visit to Tri-Cities might have you think that the entire pacific northwest is a desert region.
Suggesting that an ice sheet on the coast of a continent will indicate what’s happening on the continent’s interior, let alone what’s going on around the world, is extremely naive.
September 10, 2014 at 6:08 pm #813253
SmittyParticipant“Suggesting that an ice sheet on the coast of a continent will indicate what’s happening on the continent’s interior, let alone what’s going on around the world, is extremely naive.
Agreed.
That should work both ways. Seems the alarmists use this consistently when it is shrinking…..
September 10, 2014 at 6:29 pm #813254
dobroParticipant“Seems the alarmists use this…”
Phrases like “the alarmists” pretty much let you know that science and actual facts will not be part of the discussion.
September 10, 2014 at 6:53 pm #813255
wakefloodParticipantAgreed, dobro.
Things like melting icecaps get pushed to the front of the media presentation simply because it takes something dramatic to make an impact and change ingrained behavior.
We humans follow the path of least resistance as a general rule and there’s lots of momentum to keep doing what we’re doing, regardless of impacts.
My mother wouldn’t stop smoking until the day she was shown an x-ray with a big mass in her lungs. And even then she struggled.
There’s enough noise to overcome and frankly enough is at stake that if you have a functional way to make a light bulb go on for the masses, use it.
September 10, 2014 at 7:10 pm #813256
JoBParticipantwake.. well there’s that..
but acidification is more responsible for that than the actual temperature of the sea
September 10, 2014 at 7:11 pm #813257
JoBParticipantsmitty..
if i called to tell you i thought your house was on fire because i saw smoke coming from your roof…
would i be a realist or an alarmist?
September 10, 2014 at 7:14 pm #813258
SmittyParticipant“Things like melting icecaps get pushed to the front of the media presentation simply because it takes something dramatic to make an impact and change ingrained behavior.”
On that we can agree. Both sides (yes, I know, the science is settled and the debate is over so it’s not 50/50) are guilty of this.
September 10, 2014 at 8:00 pm #813259
VBDParticipantSmitty, you are right, the logic should be consistent on both sides of the argument.
However, the deniers tend to cherry pick their data, such as a claim that a temperature here or there is lower instead of higher, or a particular glacier is growing instead of receding.
The legitimate climate scientists tend to speak more in terms or the sum of the observations. An example statement might be, “although a minority of glaciers are showing signs of growth, the overall trend has been towards global ice loss.”
The only way to properly evaluate global warming, is to do so in global terms. And the fact is that the mean global temperature is going up, and the total ice volume on earth has been going down.
If you want to contend that humans may not be the sole cause of the warming, that would be a reasonable argument to investigate. And you can be assured there are many scientists doing just that. But if you simply deny that warming is happening at all, you are completely ignoring a substantial amount of evidence.
The “alarmists” in this topic are the media. They will slant the story in whatever way creates the most outrage. They have a product to sell. News stories tend to over play both sides of the argument.
September 10, 2014 at 8:20 pm #813260
dobroParticipantBeing able to distinguish between “scientists” and “fossil fuel industry paid stooges” helps move the discussion along, too.
September 10, 2014 at 8:43 pm #813261
SmittyParticipant“Being able to distinguish between “scientists” and “fossil fuel industry paid stooges” helps move the discussion along, too.”
Oh, please! So you don’t think a vast majority of climate scientist are funded/tenured because they *agree* with AGW? That cuts both ways.
“The only way to properly evaluate global warming, is to do so in global terms. And the fact is that the mean global temperature is going up, and the total ice volume on earth has been going down.”
Agree 100%. Weather is not climate. But again, both sides seem to yell at the top of their lungs if it is snowing in August or 80 degrees January.
“If you want to contend that humans may not be the sole cause of the warming, that would be a reasonable argument to investigate.”
That’s me. Or, I should say – not as BIG a part as we are lead to believe. The earths temp has fluctuated since the dawn of time, and we are currently cooler than both the Roman and Medieval periods – but the “graphs” always start in 1860 for some reason…..
September 10, 2014 at 8:59 pm #813262
VBDParticipantFunny that people will anecdotally reference what one paid-off scientist did or didn’t say, as if they even know. The the bulk of the statements bouncing around are actually experienced based, not scientific analysis.
You know, the comments from people during a Seattle warm spell like “if this is global warming, bring it on!”
Or perhaps a winter storm hits and people say “So I thought we had global warming, this feels like global cooling to me.”
Very few people actually READ the climate studies. They base their confidence about climate change in what they experience themselves, or what today’s news report says.
There is also the faith component. The vast majority of climate change deniers I know are strongly Christian. Interesting…
September 10, 2014 at 9:11 pm #813263
wakefloodParticipantJoB, yup, but the acidification has the same root cause as the terrestrial climate change. CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.
September 10, 2014 at 9:59 pm #813264
skeeterParticipantMeanwhile there’s a new opportunity out there for tourists…
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/breaking-the-ice-northwest-passage-is-opening-up-to-97140115067.html
September 10, 2014 at 10:51 pm #813265
wakefloodParticipantExcellent, Skeets! I was glad to see that 50% of the profits from the cruise were going to a polar bear rescue fund.
Wait, they aren’t? My bad. ;-)
September 11, 2014 at 12:07 am #813266
SmittyParticipantThis guy did it in 1905 somehow. No tourists aboard, however.
September 11, 2014 at 3:08 am #813267
JoBParticipantstill not sure i would sign on for the northwest passage… historic but oh so very cold
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.