DescentBB

.....this past month was THE hottest month ever recorded by thermometers in the US.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/0 ... urce=atltw

meanwhile sea level rise is at least 20% more than the predicted rate, and some folks think we should ignore the whole thing and not waste our money studying or preparing. Such idiots should be never allowed to hold public office.

I don't know, we had a fairly cool July this year in the PNW. Too bad the same can't be said for August.

callmeslick wrote:Such idiots should be never allowed to hold public office.

We should do a better job showing why to the people that are electing them.

tough to sell the obvious to those determined to deny it.

No, you are trying to lay the blame on man when this is just another cycle of nature changing. The dumb ones think that you can regulate our way out of it.

woodchip wrote:...just another cycle of nature changing.

LOL.

woodchip wrote:No, you are trying to lay the blame on man when this is just another cycle of nature changing. The dumb ones think that you can regulate our way out of it.

please locate the words, above, where I so much as MENTIONED causation, or man?

woodchip wrote:No, you are trying to lay the blame on man when this is just another cycle of nature changing. The dumb ones think that you can regulate our way out of it.

Did you miss the story of a species of animal going extinct near Australia because the sea levels rose so high, they were flooded out?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... y-melomys/

dead because people were going 'nah this isn't happening'.

It's the fault of Russia, China, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq and North Korea above all. United States urgently need to take additional measures of an economic or military coercion against everyone except themselves for the prevention of global warming.

still waiting for Woody to either find the quotes or be man enough to state that he just made up the assertion about what I said or meant.

callmeslick wrote:still waiting for Woody to either find the quotes or be man enough to state that he just made up the assertion about what I said or meant.

Oh so you are admitting that global warming is not due to man? If so I'll apologize that you said it was due to man. Now are you man enough to admit man made warming is a hoax?

woodchip wrote: Oh so you are admitting that global warming is not due to man?

still can't read for comprehension? I stated that I am not CONCERNED about causation, I'm concerned with ADDRESSING the situation. In another thread you try to make Louisiana flooding a political football. It's an OBVIOUS example of climate change effects.

If so I'll apologize that you said it was due to man. Now are you man enough to admit man made warming is a hoax?

why should it be seen as a 'hoax'? Most folks who know WAY more than you and me(virtually ALL of them) agree man has played a role. Hardly a hoax, but hardly what I was addressing above. Feel free to cling to your ideologically driven, anti-science stupidity......address the question: Why is the GOP averse to even MENTIONING that the climate is changing, or even looking into possible steps to address that obvious change?


note, I am not taking the view YOU have espoused, that climate change is not real.

Nope, not all slick and that is where your argument falls apart. Until I see universal agreement and no favoritism in the way research money is allocated, I consider the man made warming argument as flawed. When the Pope puts a climate panel together and no dissenting view points are allowed, I say in reality it is political junk science.

head returned to sand, Woody refuses to admit that he lied about my words. Yes, Trump is your guy. Just keep making stuff up

so head back into the comfortable sand of ideologically driven willful ignorance, I see. I also see that you still don't have the honor to admit you claimed I said something I had not(and even followed it up with more BS). Make America Lie Some More!!











.

So when wherever woodhead is living either becomes economically unfeasible or inhospitable due to climate change, will we still see him claiming that it's just part of nature?

Now are you man enough to admit man made warming is a hoax?

When a species of mammal suddenly becomes extinct due to rising sea levels, it's not a hoax in the slightest. You might as well be calling car collisions a hoax by the auto industry with that kind of logic.

woodchip wrote:
Oh so you are admitting that global warming is not due to man? If so I'll apologize that you said it was due to man. Now are you man enough to admit man made warming is a hoax?

We have shown you, to your face, in at least a half-dozen threads all of the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Either stop being deliberately obtuse or stop posting.

And I have shown you in half a dozen threads that there are questions and not all scientists agree.

woodchip wrote:And I have shown you in half a dozen threads that there are questions and not all scientists agree.

questions are normal in science. Denying the overwhelming evidence that man has played at least SOME role is not, and no reputable climate science expert has done that.

callmeslick wrote: and no reputable climate science expert has done that.

And there-in lies the rub. Any scientist who disagree with the official propaganda is labeled "not reputable" Yup, that's how we get good science.

no, the fact is that you've never cited one person who is a professional in climate science in the 'doubt about any human causation' camp. You've found a mathematician, a physicist, etc, but NO environment scientist. NOT ONE.

Still, let's at least try, if you can, to stay on topic. I pointedly attempted to leave causation out of this, and merely stated that the reality of climate change dictates that something be done to study possible recourse. You refuse to accept that, citing an argument over CAUSE, but seemingly dancing around the very real climate change which is occurring. Why?

Is he talking about scientific consensus? He is, isn't he?

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

still, my whole point was around admitting the changes ARE HAPPENING AT ALL......something Woody has, when he finds it convenient, attempted to dismiss in the past(remember that whole matter of plateaus, etc). The mere existence was all I was implying in this thread, not who caused what to what degree. Yet, one person chose to sidetrack onto causation to dodge the central question. Why?

So much for the pause.

woodchip wrote:Nope, not all slick and that is where your argument falls apart. Until I see universal agreement and no favoritism in the way research money is allocated, I consider the man made warming argument as flawed.

More like until the Republican party finally changes its position on the matter. If the two parties' positions were reversed, let's not pretend that you wouldn't be making the exact opposite argument right now.

It's too bad carbon emissions aren't brown people we can bomb.

You see, if carbon emissions actually made business interests lose money, then it would be a priority. But by the time that's apparent, we'll either be roasted, or drowned.

It still cracks me the hell up that woody claims to have studied some scientific discipline yet has no earthly idea how the scientific process actually works. Hope that world-class education didn't set you back too much kiddo.

What we have here is a war of ideologies, between capitalism and intellectualism, business and science. Right now, profit is more important than life and the earth. One of these days, that's going to change, whether we like it, or not. I'd rather see us more proactive, instead of reactive, because sometime in the future, reactive will be too late to do anything about the problem.

Top Gun wrote:It still cracks me the hell up that woody claims to have studied some scientific discipline yet has no earthly idea how the scientific process actually works. Hope that world-class education didn't set you back too much kiddo.

Since you do not have a degree, lets take a look and see what you and a lot of people like you do not understand...how easily you can be manipulated. First off there was a Aussie prof who studied 12,000 abstracts among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible (As a aside this is the same guy who started the blog "Skeptical Science" so you might want to take with a grain of salt what you read there). In his analysis, he found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible. Sounds pretty impressive to a non science major like you and vision. Now here is where your bubble gets burst.

Of those 12,000 papers only 34% mentioned warming and of those 33% mentioned man made global warming so 33/34% gets you the much bandied about 97% consensus figure. So the play ground by the warmers is now set and all you hear about is the 97%. So hold your nose as we are going to delve deeper into this and I hope I don't have to write a Dick and Jane style explanation here:

When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed.

Are you reading this and is it understandable enough that that only 1% of those 12000 abstracts expressed a opinion and not the 34% as indicated by the prof who runs the science blog that I see referred to here from time to time. And it gets a bit better:

Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.

So was the misinterpretation deliberate to pad the results? I'll let you make the distinction. Next on the list is this:

A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.

http://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bra ... d_XLS_data

So a couple of scientist questioning the models as I have pointed out before...there is not enough good info to feed in to the models to be accurate let alone set policies based on them. And then we have:

And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/c ... _01731.pdf

I could keep going but I'm sure someone like you TG has their eyes glazed over and have stopped reading. You and others here will continue to think that most all of real scientist are pro man made warming when that is a false ideology sprung upon the uneducated and ill informed. I trust in the future TG, you keep your doubts about my science degree to yourself as by your posts here you are ill equipped to challenge me.

Slick, I'll try to discuss with you causation now that the consensus fraud is put to bed.

Vander wrote:It's too bad carbon emissions aren't brown people we can bomb.

Heh. I see what you did there. Nice maneuver.

Top Gun wrote:It still cracks me the hell up that woody claims to have studied some scientific discipline yet has no earthly idea how the scientific process actually works. Hope that world-class education didn't set you back too much kiddo.

Yeah I guess it is kind of funny. He lies about everything else, so the 'zoologist' who doesn't know squat about science doesn't surprise me when he says something this absurd. Wonder what's next... that the earth is flat? that aircraft emit chemtrails? or that vaccines cause autism? how about gravity doesn't exist because it's just a theory? Or that there's no such thing as relativity. He's all the denialists rolled into one.

woodchip wrote:words

Apologies to the Scottish for plagiarism, but I have a physics degree, you weapons-grade plum. I have a better grasp of the underlying mechanics involved than you could ever dream of achieving. You are so far out of your league it's not even funny. Legates, the researcher you cite (and I am absolutely embarassed that the university which granted my degree employs such a hack), signed this piece of garbage essentially stating "well there's no way that God would let humans hurt the planet, right?" He's been shown to have financial backing by groups associated with the Koch Foundation (no conflict of interest there, right?) His 0.3% figure is patently absurd, obtained by essentially doing the equivalent of reading the tags on a YouTube video, looking for papers which explicitly endorsed a specific phrase as opposed to the more generalized agreement recognized in Cook's study. You're also blatantly ignoring the fact that Cook's study surveyed the relevant scientists directly in addition to merely examining their abstracts, and he obtained the same 97% endorsement total in either case.

Oh, and did you actually look at the PBL Netherlands survey you linked? Go in the index and find questions #20 and 21, the ones which directly inquire about anthropogenic global warming. Tell me what those response curves look like. Yup, thought so, overwhelming consensus.

Literally every relevant national and international scientific organization recognizes anthropogenic global warming, across the board. Again, you stick your head up your ass and ignore the overwhelming majority of evidence against you, yet you place unquestioned faith in a few poorly-constructed outliers. You are the living breathing definition of a logical fallacy. I repeat, get educated or stop posting.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:words

Apologies to the Scottish for plagiarism, but I have a physics degree, you weapons-grade plum. I have a better grasp of the underlying mechanics involved than you could ever dream of achieving. You are so far out of your league it's not even funny. Legates, the researcher you cite (and I am absolutely embarassed that the university which granted my degree employs such a hack), signed this piece of garbage essentially stating "well there's no way that God would let humans hurt the planet, right?" He's been shown to have financial backing by groups associated with the Koch Foundation (no conflict of interest there, right?) His 0.3% figure is patently absurd, obtained by essentially doing the equivalent of reading the tags on a YouTube video, looking for papers which explicitly endorsed a specific phrase as opposed to the more generalized agreement recognized in Cook's study. You're also blatantly ignoring the fact that Cook's study surveyed the relevant scientists directly in addition to merely examining their abstracts, and he obtained the same 97% endorsement total in either case.

So you are saying a sitting professor who once headed the Climatic Research Dept is a hack. Have you headed up anything? As to your assertions on how Legates obtained his research sounds an awful like like slick doing spin control. Unless you can back up anything what you said here, I consider you just another brainwashed warmer trying desperately to defend his position.

Top Gun wrote:Oh, and did you actually look at the PBL Netherlands survey you linked? Go in the index and find questions #20 and 21, the ones which directly inquire about anthropogenic global warming. Tell me what those response curves look like. Yup, thought so, overwhelming consensus.

I looked and unless you found some hidden questions or that I'm blinder than a bat...the questions only go to19b. So if I'm right then you wasted a lot of money on a degree that can't help you number questions correctly. If you want to look at questions try number:

18a where the question of co2 follows temp rise, or anthro co2 is smaller than natural co2. What are the respondents percentage? Try around 40% agree. Nowhere near overwhelming concensus. I suggest you read the charts closer instead of skim reading like you do here.

Top Gun wrote:Literally every relevant national and international scientific organization recognizes anthropogenic global warming, across the board. Again, you stick your head up your ass and ignore the overwhelming majority of evidence against you, yet you place unquestioned faith in a few poorly-constructed outliers. You are the living breathing definition of a logical fallacy. I repeat, get educated or stop posting.

Yet you have difficulty understanding the graphs in the PBL study. Clearly it is not all scientists who agree on causation. The point of this exercise was to show that the whole of the science world is not in lockstep on the global warming issue. Many have questions and many downright do not agree. I see you have taken to using slicks term of "outliers" to down play the relevance of something. By doing so you represent everything wrong with scientists who try to prove a ideology instead of asking opposing questions. Hopefully you are not actively working as a physicist.

callmeslick wrote:no, the fact is that you've never cited one person who is a professional in climate science in the 'doubt about any human causation' camp. You've found a mathematician, a physicist, etc, but NO environment scientist. NOT ONE.

Read my replies to TG

callmeslick wrote:Still, let's at least try, if you can, to stay on topic. I pointedly attempted to leave causation out of this, and merely stated that the reality of climate change dictates that something be done to study possible recourse. You refuse to accept that, citing an argument over CAUSE, but seemingly dancing around the very real climate change which is occurring. Why?

Never said the climate wasn't changing. But then it has changed dramatically up and down during the last couple of thousand years so nothing new there. The question is what can we do about it and the bigger question is will we make the situation worse by trying to meddle with Mother Nature. I think the first thing we have to wonder, is this really a bad thing? Yes it is if we rise an average of 50degs in the next 100 years. OTOH, warmer northern latitudes will open up longer growing seasons and places to live. So what can we do? First off I think we need to take a look at some sort of mandatory birth control, something that will work and not something like China tried. The expanding populations in the third world are a drain on the worlds resources. So here would be a start. Metaphorically a tough pill to swallow.
I'll leave you to digest this before continuing on.

digest what? Yet another dodge. I asked why one US political party is committed to denying change even exists, committed to preventing research on the extent and speed, and making the future well-being of the entire nation a political football. You've spent several days dancing around that. The folks in Louisiana know it's real, don't likely give a crap what or who caused it, but would probably benefit from a sizeable investment in planning for a future while their state slowly melts into the Gulf.

Forgive me I thought you wanted to discuss not ideologies of climate change but what can be done. My bad.

I asked about what sort of empty headed ideology makes discussion of what to do off limits.

Back to ideology I see. Discussion ended.

hilarious. Now, go back and read my initial post, and tell me how you EVER attempted to address my point in this thread.