"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense

Grayson wrote: »

There are tens of thousands of climate scientists who are studying this and something like 98% are in agreement with the three core findings of the IEEE.

Link?

To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed, and by what organisation, what the response rate was, and where was this analysis published?

Thanks.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

That NASA says that the average global temperature of 288k hasn't increased since 1972 and hasn't been affected by adding an extra 75ppm of
atmospheric CO2?

2017
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

1972
https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

Unless they're going to start saying NASA is now talking pure shîte, I'd say they agree with the above.

You agree with the above too, don't you?


http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/CO2MAUNA.XLS&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjs7sSGz53eAhWGWsAKHS1FCB8QFjAEegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3kA3W8N3aKMXC-unazCDaD

Before I bother looking at your silly links. Are you saying that NASA agree with your view on global warming?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Link?

To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed, and by what organisation, what the response rate was, and where was this analysis published?

Thanks.

blah blah blah. Stupid requests for an impossible burden of proof that you can nit pick no matter what the response. Typical of someone trying to obfuscate, not find an answer.

You claim there is no consensus, if that's true, you should be able to easily find dozens of statements from reputable scientific institutions or university departments who currently dispute the consensus

Link to a single one please.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

blah blah blah. Stupid requests for an impossible burden of proof that you can nit pick no matter what the response. Typical of someone trying to obfuscate, not find an answer.

You claim there is no consensus, if that's true, you should be able to easily find dozens of statements from reputable scientific institutions or university departments who currently dispute the consensus

Link to a single one please.

There is nothing stupid about simply asking someone who's making up figures to explain where their figures are coming from, or indeed, why they are making them up.

Why would you accept their nonsense?

I asked you for figures to back up your recent claims and I'm still waiting.

It doesn't really matter to me if all academies of science are singing from the one hymn book.

The thing to remember is, like myself, the majority of governments are rejecting their junk science to.


The latest UNIPCC propaganda report has had its 15 minutes of fame and quite correctly has been quickly forgotten about.

Official lip service was paid to it, nothing more, a fact you will acknowledge yourself amidst your cries for global collective action to avert catastrophe, which are falling on deaf ears.

Stupid and fake claims are what you and the likes of George Lee use to promote fake global warming and fake research that attempted to show a scientific consensus.

You lie to people to try to fool them.
You can't deal with simple facts, so you rely on fiction.

We've just had another fake claim made, this time not about a 97%, but a 98% consensus

Made up, unverifiable numbers, the ingredients of "climate science".

University "climate research" funding depends on accepting, creating and perpetuating stupid fake claims in order to sustain their existence.

Do you honestly expect academia to be biting the hand that is feeding it?

They won't and they'll go along with whatever fake research the likes of Cook et al publish because it suits them.



Like you and the rest of the warmists here, they silently endorse fakery because it suits their self serving agenda.

You've been making the most ridiculous claims and faux pas here for the last few months and not one warmist has had the integrity to permit them to admit to it.

xckjoo

So not a single person has been able to provide a single link to a semi- reputable university of research body that refutes mans effect on climate change? After 50 pages that's looking pretty definitive.

Dohnjoe

xckjoo wrote: »

So not a single person has been able to provide a single link to a semi- reputable university of research body that refutes mans effect on climate change? After 50 pages that's looking pretty definitive.

Correct. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people (or one individual) dragging a thread on for another 50 pages with never-ending circular denialism. To them it's purely an exercise in stamina and dogmatic beliefs.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

There is nothing stupid about simply asking someone who's making up figures to explain where their figures are coming from, or indeed, why they are making them up.

Why would you accept their nonsense?

I asked you for figures to back up your recent claims and I'm still waiting.

It doesn't really matter to me if all academies of science are singing from the one hymn book.

The thing to remember is, like myself, the majority of governments are rejecting their junk science to.


The latest UNIPCC propaganda report has had its 15 minutes of fame and quite correctly has been quickly forgotten about.

Official lip service was paid to it, nothing more, a fact you will acknowledge yourself amidst your cries for global collective action to avert catastrophe, which are falling on deaf ears.

Stupid and fake claims are what you and the likes of George Lee use to promote fake global warming and fake research that attempted to show a scientific consensus.

You lie to people to try to fool them.
You can't deal with simple facts, so you rely on fiction.

We've just had another fake claim made, this time not about a 97%, but a 98% consensus

Made up, unverifiable numbers, the ingredients of "climate science".

University "climate research" funding depends on accepting, creating and perpetuating stupid fake claims in order to sustain their existence.

Do you honestly expect academia to be biting the hand that is feeding it?

They won't and they'll go along with whatever fake research the likes of Cook et al publish because it suits them.



Like you and the rest of the warmists here, they silently endorse fakery because it suits their self serving agenda.

You've been making the most ridiculous claims and faux pas here for the last few months and not one warmist has had the integrity to permit them to admit to it.

Lol.

So you're admitting that there is a consensus amongst professional scientists, but you're just declaring that they're all lying about it to get funding.

You're a joke dense.

Go back to your 'notrickszone' nonsense where they actually do fake data and falsify graphs.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correct. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people (or one individual) dragging a thread on for another 50 pages with never-ending circular denialism. To them it's purely an exercise in stamina and dogmatic beliefs.

+1

There will never be a consensus reached, round we go on the spin cycle.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

+1

There will never be a consensus reached, round we go on the spin cycle.

There is a consensus amongst experts who know what they're talking about, consensus is not the same as unanimous agreement.

In terms of public opinion, depending on which country you're in, it varies depending on the education levels in the country and the standards of discourse in their politics and media. In the EU 92% of adults accept climate change and consider it to be a serious problem (based on ESS survey in 2017)

But this is an internet discussion forum, and sometimes the nuttier opinions get amplified especially amongst those who consume the nuttier media outlets based in the US and the UK who are opposing action on climate change for ideological reasons or because it's in their own financial interest to do so.

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correct. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people (or one individual) dragging a thread on for another 50 pages with never-ending circular denialism. To them it's purely an exercise in stamina and dogmatic beliefs.

You've just summed up irrational denialism in general.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a consensus amongst experts who know what they're talking about, consensus is not the same as unanimous agreement.

In terms of public opinion, depending on which country you're in, it varies depending on the education levels in the country and the standards of discourse in their politics and media. In the EU 92% of adults accept climate change and consider it to be a serious problem (based on ESS survey in 2017)

But this is an internet discussion forum, and sometimes the nuttier opinions get amplified especially amongst those who consume the nuttier media outlets based in the US and the UK who are opposing action on climate change for ideological reasons or because it's in their own financial interest to do so.

You misinterpret my words, which relate specifically to this thread and the redundant arguments of a wind-up merchant.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Lol.

So you're admitting that there is a consensus amongst professional scientists, but you're just declaring that they're all lying about it to get funding.

Most definitely, because a fake consensus was arrived at, by arbitrarily giving a minority of climate researchers an opportunity to engage in the "Consensus Project".

The views of the majority of climate scientists referred to in the study were deliberately not sought, which was not surprising given that the majority of climate research analysed FAILED to endorse the AGW theory.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/02402

Akrasia wrote: »

Go back to your 'notrickszone' nonsense where they actually do fake data and falsify graphs.

Talking about NOAA and it's famous missing data again?


The data that you say they can verify once they make it up?



Or the CRU at UEA and the missing data they had to make up?

Akrasia wrote: »

You're a joke dense.

The joke is on you Akrasia.

This is a tough time for climate science. The Guardian's new revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia might help to explain the university's utter failure to confront its critics.



They could also explain why the head of the unit, Phil Jones, blocked freedom of information requests and proposed that material subject to those requests be deleted.

He has been spared a criminal investigation only because the time limit for prosecutions has expired.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails

dense

It will be interesting to see what sort of character assassination Akrasia comes up with for these people:




https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/

xckjoo

You ask for research and get a 2010 op-ed piece about a near 30 year old paper that (if read fully) does nothing to refute the posters claims that man-made climate change is a hoax. Couple that with repeating claims based on complete lack of understanding of scientific methodology (that have already been explained ad nauseam) and a few personal digs to try and drag things off point again. Is there a better summation of this thread?

WesternZulu

dense wrote: »

That NASA says that the average global temperature of 288k hasn't increased since 1972 and hasn't been affected by adding an extra 75ppm of
atmospheric CO2?

2017
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

1972
https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

Unless they're going to start saying NASA is now talking pure shîte, I'd say they agree with the above.

You agree with the above too, don't you?


http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/CO2MAUNA.XLS&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjs7sSGz53eAhWGWsAKHS1FCB8QFjAEegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3kA3W8N3aKMXC-unazCDaD

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

WesternZulu wrote: »

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018



No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

xckjoo

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

He hasn't forgotten. This is standard operating procedure. Don't bother trying to engage.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Most definitely, because a fake consensus was arrived at, by arbitrarily giving a minority of climate researchers an opportunity to engage in the "Consensus Project".

The views of the majority of climate scientists referred to in the study were deliberately not sought, which was not surprising given that the majority of climate research analysed FAILED to endorse the AGW theory.

WTF are you going on about now.

Anyway, even if what you said is true, and it isn't. You've just contradicted your previous statement that the scientists and the universities have to endorse AGW or else they won't get any funding

Which is it Dense? You only just said you can't find a single university or scientific institute who supports your view because they're all corrupt and lying about the data, and right now, you're saying that the majority of their published research doesn't actually support the global warming consensus. You can't have it both ways.

mcmoustache

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

This is common in denialism threads. Debunked nonsense gets reposted when enough time has passed. If a denier was arguing in good faith, they wouldn't do that. If they were disingenuously trying to deceive, then that's exactly what they would do. It's not confined to climate change - you'll also see it in vaccine threads.

Akrasia

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

Even worse than that, Dense is lying when dense says that NASA said global average temperature was 288k in 1972. If you look at the link, the only mention of 288k is here

.. this is far less than the observed mean surface temperature, T,, of Earth, 286? to 288 K.

In other words, back in 1972 when this paper was written, the global average temperature was estimated as 287k with a margin of error +-1k
Dense spent another night googling for anything dense could find to support dense's preexisting argument, and again, Dense failed miserably.

One can only imagine how many papers Dense found that measured the earth's temperature at 287k that Dense was forced to ignore before Dense got to the one reference of 288k dense so desperately wanted

dense

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

You don't appear to understand that you have linked to a chart of temperature anomalies, nor do you appear to able to explain what they signify for you.



I on the other hand have demonstrated that according to NASA, the global average temperature last year was the same as it was in 1972.


Even I agree with Akrasia when they recommend adopting a sceptical approach to the validity of extrapolating baselines from extremely sparse global 19th century and earlier temperature data due to well documented reliability issues.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Even worse than that, Dense is lying when dense says that NASA said global average temperature was 288k in 1972. If you look at the link, the only mention of 288k is here


In other words, back in 1972 when this paper was written, the global average temperature was estimated as 287k with a margin of error +-1k
Dense spent another night googling for anything dense could find to support dense's preexisting argument, and again, Dense failed miserably.

One can only imagine how many papers Dense found that measured the earth's temperature at 287k that Dense was forced to ignore before Dense got to the one reference of 288k dense so desperately wanted

Akrasia, stop, you're being pathetic.

The paper said 286 - 288k.
Thats a 3k variable.

Your alleged error margin is +-1k.
Meaning that the average temperature could be 289k.

2017's global average temperature was lower, 288k.

You've already claimed that the average gobal temperature in 1981 was "approximately" 288k, are you trying to wash your hands of that now?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108382510&postcount=712


If so, why?


Just because you're pisśed off that the average global temperature in 2017 was 288k?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Akrasia, stop, you're being pathetic.

The paper said 286 - 288k.
Thats a 3k variable.

Your alleged error margin is +-1k.
Meaning that the average temperature could be 289k.

2017's global average temperature was lower, 288k.

You've already claimed that the average gobal temperature in 1981 was "approximately" 288k, are you trying to wash your hands of that now?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108382510&postcount=712


If so, why?


Just because you're pisśed off that the average global temperature in 2017 was 288k?

dense

I meant to pull Akrasia up on another one of their fake claims, namely that the BEST temperature data project had been put together by someone who was initially a sceptic, but whose research allegedly led them to being an alarmist.


Well if Akrasia knew anything about Richard Muller they'd know that Muller was a fan of Al Gore, the UNIPCC and AGW theory back in 2008, years before being "converted" by their Berkeley Earth project.

What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion — which he does, but he’s very effective at it — then let him fly any plane he wants.

https://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/


Guess Akrasia doesn't know much about anything.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Which is it Dense? You only just said you can't find a single university or scientific institute who supports your view because they're all corrupt and lying about the data, and right now, you're saying that the majority of their published research doesn't actually support the global warming consensus. You can't have it both ways.

Post up UCD's official "AGW Climate Change Position Statement" and we'll go through it.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I meant to pull Akrasia up on another one of their fake claims, namely that the BEST temperature data project had been put together by someone who was initially a sceptic, but whose research allegedly led them to being an alarmist.


Well if Akrasia knew anything about Richard Muller they'd know that Muller was a fan of Al Gore, the UNIPCC and AGW theory back in 2008, years before being "converted" by their Berkeley Earth project.




https://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/


Guess Akrasia doesn't know much about anything.

Here's what Muller himself had to say in 2012,

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

He was a scientist who believed in global warming, then read some papers which made him doubt the consensus, so he did what a good scientist does, he investigated it and when the results came back, he went with the conclusions supported by the data.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Post up UCD's official "AGW Climate Change Position Statement" and we'll go through it.

You mean this?

Climate

Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have now been linked unequivocally to the warming of our planet. Temperature increases in certain regions of the globe will likely result in ice sheet reduction, increased flooding and more frequent extreme weather events.
http://www.ucd.ie/earth/research/climate/

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You mean this?

Yes, the acknowledgement from the Earth Scientists that the AGW does theory exist alongside of the admission that the scientific understanding of climate science is incomplete:

Climate scientists at UCD Earth Institute are combining data and models to help understand how our climate is changing, and how the planet’s feedback systems will react to those changes in the future.

Bit non committal isn't it?



UCD climate scientists could do with some more help in order to understand how our climate is changing.


Strange position to admit to being in.

It contradicts those who profess to know how our climate is changing and how the earth's feedback systems will react in the future.



Having it both ways comes to mind.



Still, its probably better than pretending the science is settled.

Is there no official statement from UCD itself on whether it endorses the AGW theory?

Akrasia

Is that the best you can do?

Seriously?

They say the human link is unequivocal through fossil fuel use and deforestation.

i'd do the Picard facepalm again but I think you're just trolling now

BTW, Nobody claims to know for certain how the earth will react to climate change.

What we have are scenarios for what we think is likely to happen based on the evidence we have. Some scenarios are more likely than others, and some are more damaging than others. Nobody says all the science is settled. But the question over whether global warming is happening and whether humans are responsible definitely is answered, unequivocally. That question settled.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

They say the human link is unequivocal through fossil fuel use and deforestation.

They being from the "Earth Sciences" department.


I'm sure the humanities department actively acknowledges the god theory etc.



Does the university itself not publish an official climate change position statement that we can evaluate?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's what Muller himself had to say in 2012,


He was a scientist who believed in global warming, then read some papers which made him doubt the consensus, so he did what a good scientist does, he investigated it and when the results came back, he went with the conclusions supported by the data.

He just had a bit of a wobble over the junk science until he got his funding to do some junk science.

It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he told The Huffington Post’s Tom Zeller Jr. in a recent email exchange.



“Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’



But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1094966