Discussion:
The Science Is Settled -- Until It's Not -- With Respect To Our Former President, The Oceans Did Not Stop Rising With Your Election, OR The Climate Sham of Taxing Americans To The Tune of $22 Billion a Year
(too old to reply)
Hillbilly Davis
2017-09-29 22:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Science Is Settled -- Until It's Not

Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the science is settled!

If any scientific issue should be "settled" this may be it. Knowledge of
DNA dates to the 1950s and perhaps the 1860s. Researchers mapped our
genetic code in 2003, advances have quickened since.

But the story has a twist. Orangutans actually share more human-like
features and some researchers question the genetic comparison.

Of course, the public never hears "settled science!" about academic
curiosities like human-primate genetics. The refrain, however, is common -
usually joined with copious contempt - about the formerly named
"Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW). But despite billions of dollars and
vast attention from scientists, only three AGW premises emerge with
scientific certainty:

Global temperatures are up slightly, about 0.3 percent or 0.8° C, since
the late 1800s.

During this period, humans have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity fueled
partly by cheap energy. This, in turn, has flooded the atmosphere with
carbon dioxide (CO2).

None of the DIRE predictions about how surplus CO2 would affect the
earth's climate or booming human population has happened.


A couple of examples:

Former NASA scientist James Hansen the "father of climate change" in 2006:

"We have at most ten years - not ten years to decide upon action, but ten
years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions
... We have reached a critical tipping point ... it will soon be
impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable
consequences."

The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 estimated there would be between
50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

But things are actually dandy. Hurricanes are at their lowest point in
decades. Droughts are practically nonexistent in the U.S. With due respect
to the former president, the oceans did not stop rising with his election,
but the extra CO2 hasn't hastened the rise:

Loading Image...

And even Hansen now admits, the period between the last interglacial
period - the period between ice ages - was warmer than today.

Finally, and most vexing to climate scientists, global temperatures have
remained flat for around two decades despite gigatonnes more emitted.

Evidence suggests adding ocean temperatures boosts the trend. But a
University of Virginia scientist posits the dramatic increase in sunbathed
buoys as temperature gauges explains this. Regardless, the "pause" has
vexed scientists trying to explain erroneous models. They have suggested
natural variables including ocean cycles, volcanoes, and solar radiation.

As one leading climate scientists stated regarding natural variability,
"There is no disagreement that there is decadal variability, and that it
is real and needs to be better understood." We can roughly translate this
benign statement into, "We actually don't know how all these natural
factors work together. If we did we wouldn't keep screwing up the models."

In ordinary science this is, well, ordinary. Discovery reveals ignorance
as it accumulates knowledge. As the great philosopher of science, Karl
Popper stated: "The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our
learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our
knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance."

AGW of course is not ordinary science. It comes with billions of dollars,
media attention, activist energy, and power over the global economy. These
factors bring out normal human traits of self-interest and the desire for
prestige.

In extreme form, it ends in calls for criminal prosecutions of
"skeptics." Robert Kennedy Jr. labeled some "war criminals." Bill Nye, an
actor with no scientific background, also suggested jail.

Pointing out the data doesn't match the predictions gets one branded a
"denier" or "anti-science." Calling for civil AGW debate in the New York
Times produces a flood of canceled subscriptions.

This turns science into just another way to score political points or
virtue signal as a recent TV segment exemplified.

In it, Bill Nye and another climate activist squared off with an actual
Princeton scientist who formerly headed research at the Department of
Energy. As the scientist calmly explained facts, Nye exploded:

"Say what you will but you have it absolutely wrong. What happened to that
heat, he's cherry picking a certain model and the heat ended up in the
ocean ... So sir, with some respect, I encourage you to cut this out so
that we can all move forward ... ."

As if to embody the current debate, the moderator concluded the segment by
asking the other activist to explain her "feelings."

Feelings, bullying, and condescension of debatable propositions are the
last refuge of science's scoundrels. And policy consensus will not
accompany slurs and derision. The debate must change.
Liberals are VERMIN!
2017-09-29 22:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has nothing to do with it.
Dhu on Gate
2017-09-30 00:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has nothing to do with it.
Oh BS you delusional POS. We are already moving more dirt
around than all the rivers, glaciers and earthslides from
natural causes combined. We are a global force. And to
move all that shit takes a LOT of coal and diesel.

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Optimus Prime
2017-09-30 01:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has nothing to do with it.
Oh BS you delusional POS. We are already moving more dirt
around than all the rivers, glaciers and earthslides from
natural causes combined. We are a global force. And to
move all that shit takes a LOT of coal and diesel.
Dhu
Moving dirt =/ global "warming", you moron.
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-04 02:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Optimus Prime
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has nothing to do with it.
Oh BS you delusional POS. We are already moving more dirt
around than all the rivers, glaciers and earthslides from
natural causes combined. We are a global force. And to
move all that shit takes a LOT of coal and diesel.
Dhu
Moving dirt =/ global "warming", you moron.
Oh, and you move dirt with magic, not energy...

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Hosers eat it raw
2017-11-04 04:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Optimus Prime
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has nothing to do with it.
Oh BS you delusional POS. We are already moving more dirt
around than all the rivers, glaciers and earthslides from
natural causes combined. We are a global force. And to
move all that shit takes a LOT of coal and diesel.
Dhu
Moving dirt =/ global "warming", you moron.
Oh, and you move dirt with magic, not energy...
Dhu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm


Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Dhu on Gate
2018-01-11 12:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hosers eat it raw
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Optimus Prime
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has
nothing to do with it.
Oh BS you delusional POS. We are already moving more dirt around
than all the rivers, glaciers and earthslides from natural causes
combined. We are a global force. And to move all that shit takes a
LOT of coal and diesel.
Dhu
Moving dirt =/ global "warming", you moron.
Oh, and you move dirt with magic, not energy...
Dhu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/
climate_change/1023334.stm
Post by Hosers eat it raw
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
Most assuredly Yes, we are: it's _YOUR_ aircond that's doing it.

For real.

Dhu
Post by Hosers eat it raw
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray Colorado State University This small warming is likely a
result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are
driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Polar Vortex
2018-01-11 17:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hosers eat it raw
Post by Hosers eat it raw
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Optimus Prime
Post by Liberals are VERMIN!
We are still on a warming trend after the last ice age. Man has
nothing to do with it.
Oh BS you delusional POS. We are already moving more dirt around
than all the rivers, glaciers and earthslides from natural causes
combined. We are a global force. And to move all that shit takes a
LOT of coal and diesel.
Dhu
Moving dirt =/ global "warming", you moron.
Oh, and you move dirt with magic, not energy...
Dhu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/
climate_change/1023334.stm
Post by Hosers eat it raw
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
Most assuredly Yes, we are: it's _YOUR_ aircond that's doing it.
For real.
Dhu
Wait...did you actually conflate the now repaired "hole in the ozone
layer" with fictional global "warming"?


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They
know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s
spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone
increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually
recovers until next year. And the Antarctic ozone hole isn’t alone. A
“mini-hole” was spotted over Tibet in 2003, and in 2005 scientists
confirmed thinning over the Arctic so drastic it could be considered a hole.

Each year during ozone hole season, scientists from around the world
track the depletion of the ozone above Antarctica using balloons,
satellites and computer models. They have found that the ozone hole is
actually getting smaller: Scientists estimate that if the Montreal
Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40
percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050.



I think you did, you mental fuckwit!
Post by Hosers eat it raw
Post by Hosers eat it raw
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray Colorado State University This small warming is likely a
result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are
driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Loading...