Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…34689…43

Comments

  • #152
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    Twenty Grand wrote: »
    Any evidence of government interference in the data collected? Or is this just another baseless soundbite?

    It's like the who shot Kennedy scenario? We all know who was behind it but no evidence to prove it!


  • #153
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,932 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    "There is no evidence to support it but I know that it is true". Strewth.


  • #154
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    "Man-made climate change is a myth!"

    We managed to put a hole in the ozone pretty fast


  • #155
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    It's like the who shot Kennedy scenario? We all know who was behind it but no evidence to prove it!

    Do we know? I don't.

    Just like your anti-climate change stuff, there's absolutely no evidence. All opinion and all bullsh*t.
    Anthracite wrote: »
    The real problem is the current industries that are run by people with 1-5 year horizons, heavily invested in the way things have always been done, who have the money to buy pet scientists, pet politicians and pet mouthpieces to distort the debate and confuse people who are naturally contrarian (like me) or natural right-wingers who are suspicious of science and change.

    Again, evidence please? Most of the research is done out of universities. You can read the papers on Science Direct and critique them yourself. There's no cloak and dagger stuff here. Any academic found distorting the facts for financial benefit would have their reputation destroyed.


  • #156
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    It's like the who shot Kennedy scenario? We all know who was behind it but no evidence to prove it!

    Need to fill us in there, who was behind it exactly? the Mafia? the military? the CIA? the freemasons? LBJ? Oswald?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Need to fill us in there, who was behind it exactly? the Mafia? the military? the CIA? the freemasons? LBJ? Oswald?

    I can't de-rail the thread!


  • #158
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    It's like the who shot Kennedy scenario? We all know who was behind it but no evidence to prove it!

    Just tinfoil hattery?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #159
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "Man-made climate change is a myth!"

    We managed to put a hole in the ozone pretty fast

    Did you see the hole or were you just informed about it?


  • #160
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Did you see the hole or were you just informed about it?

    I can't see WiFi but I know it's there.


  • #161
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    Twenty Grand wrote: »
    I can't see WiFi but I know it's there.

    We're going down the religious route now!


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    We're going down the religious route now!
    Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.

    You can see the state of the ozone layer here: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov


  • #163
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Did you see the hole or were you just informed about it?

    Have you seen radiation or were you just informed about it?

    What about the Mirianas trench? Dinosaurs? Shakespeare?

    If you didn't reason yourself into a viewpoint, you aren't going to be reasoned out of it.


  • #164
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Twenty Grand wrote: »
    Any evidence of government interference in the data collected? Or is this just another baseless soundbite?




    Well actually the US government sponsored NASA openly admits it is responsible for adding a half degree of "warming" to the US record for the 20th century, which accounts for most of the "warming" over that period.


    In fact nobody can say what the US "warming" was without that half a degree added.

    (Believe me, I have asked here)



    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/





    The USGAO also found that almost 50% of US weather stations were incorrectly recording artificially warmer temperatures due to being sited close to heat sources.


    https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-800


    The Tuvalu government claim that it and it's neighbours are being washed away because of rising sea levels yet recent research shows the island land mass is growing, not shrinking.



    https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html


    You'll also have heard of but probably forgotten the leaked emails from climate scientists discussing having to make up temperature records for the Southern hemisphere because comprehensive records don't exist.



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html


    Also don't forget YAD06 the single most influential tree in science that was used as a thermometer:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAD06


    Or the machinations surrounding the epic and heart rending drama surrounding the switching of methods necessary to claim sea temperatures have risen:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9225f2f24b2


    This has placed climate scientists in something of a bind of course because they now have to admit that the pause in global warming was now just another error that they'd previously endorsed, which they're now not endorsing.

    Bit like red wine being good for you this week, bad for you the next.
    Settled science and other fantasies.


    Claiming that 97% of an unknown figure equals something relevant is plain daft.

    How many climate scientists are there? Okay, where's the survey that showed that 97% of them agree that something something climate change?


    There is 8 million scientists worldwide according to the UN.
    https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/vast-set-public-cvs-reveals-world-s-most-migratory-scientists&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjsu7fdgsjcAhWDJMAKHbFNDqcQFggNMAA&usg=AOvVaw1OEpNaTDNS-I6WomNosVlh
    Disturbingly, no one knows how many "climate scientists" there are......

    Any survey I've seen (and I've seen them all) that attempt to portray a 97% consensus rely on tiny numbers of participants.



    Here's the main one, from Cook and friends.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024


    Less than a third of the analysed 12000 research papers endorsed AGW.

    Yet by the time statistics were twisted into compliance, this had turned into 97% of scientists after Barack O'Bama apparently misread the abstract.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160?lang=en

    The ultimate government interference.


    #climatejustice


  • #165
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    Finally an answer I can get my teeth into..


  • #166
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    dense wrote: »
    Well actually the US government sponsored NASA openly admits it is responsible for adding a half degree of "warming" to the US record for the 20th century, which accounts for most of the "warming" over that period.


    In fact nobody can say what the US "warming" was without that half a degree added.

    (Believe me, I have asked here)



    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/





    The USGAO also found that almost 50% of US weather stations were incorrectly recording artificially warmer temperatures due to being sited close to heat sources.


    https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-800


    The Tuvalu government claim that it and it's neighbours are being washed away because of rising sea levels yet recent research shows the island land mass is growing, not shrinking.



    https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html


    You'll also have heard of but probably forgotten the leaked emails from climate scientists discussing having to make up temperature records for the Southern hemisphere because comprehensive records don't exist.



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html


    Also don't forget YAD06 the single most influential tree in science that was used as a thermometer:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAD06


    Or the machinations surrounding the epic and heart rending drama surrounding the switching of methods necessary to claim sea temperatures have risen:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9225f2f24b2


    This has placed climate scientists in something of a bind of course because they now have to admit that the pause in global warming was now just another error that they'd previously endorsed, which they're now not endorsing.

    Bit like red wine being good for you this week, bad for you the next.
    Settled science and other fantasies.


    Claiming that 97% of an unknown figure equals something relevant is plain daft.

    How many climate scientists are there? Okay, where's the survey that showed that 97% of them agree that something something climate change?


    There is 8 million scientists worldwide according to the UN.
    https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/vast-set-public-cvs-reveals-world-s-most-migratory-scientists&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjsu7fdgsjcAhWDJMAKHbFNDqcQFggNMAA&usg=AOvVaw1OEpNaTDNS-I6WomNosVlh
    Disturbingly, no one knows how many "climate scientists" there are......

    Any survey I've seen (and I've seen them all) that attempt to portray a 97% consensus rely on tiny numbers of participants.



    Here's the main one, from Cook and friends.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024


    Less than a third of the analysed 12000 research papers endorsed AGW.

    Yet by the time statistics were twisted into compliance, this had turned into 97% of scientists after Barack O'Bama apparently misread the abstract.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160?lang=en

    The ultimate government interference.


    #climatejustice

    Absolutely brilliant.


  • #167
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    For those that didn't see the last threads on climate change, it usually degenerates into a small subset of posters swamping the thread by nit-picking "facts" (i.e. things they tell you you think are facts), failure to understand how modelling and statistical analysis works and links to dodgy websites that back them up in an argument nobody was having with them. Think along the lines of "they weren't 100% right about this one thing so it must a global conspiracy" type stuff. Don't bother trying to counter-argue a point because the goalposts will be moved before you even line-up your shot. Even if you do provide an explanation or proof, it's ignored or not understood.


  • #168
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Absolutely brilliant.


    It happens here in Ireland too, where there is an agenda by certain people in the media to distort facts to suit their narrative.



    I posted about it here:


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057892691


  • #169
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    For those that didn't see the last threads on climate change, it usually degenerates into a small subset of posters swamping the thread by nit-picking "facts" (i.e. things they tell you you think are facts), failure to understand how modelling and statistical analysis works and links to dodgy websites that back them up in an argument nobody was having with them. Think along the lines of "they weren't 100% right about this one thing so it must a global conspiracy" type stuff. Don't bother trying to counter-argue a point because the goalposts will be moved before you even line-up your shot. Even if you do provide an explanation or proof, it's ignored or not understood.


    I do recall asking those who want Ireland to be a leader in the fight against climate change to explain what percentage of "climate change" has been attributed to Ireland, and what percentage of "climate change" can potentially be averted by Ireland should Ireland implement the policies they advocate.



    That usually gets them rolling up their banners to go on to the next cause.


  • #170
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dense wrote: »
    It happens here in Ireland too, where there is an agenda by certain people in the media to distort facts to suit their narrative.

    Did we put a hole in the Ozone layer?

    I am not up to date on the latest climate change denialism, but I presume this has been attacked also?


  • #171
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Ok. I've some time when I'm waiting for something so I'll bite for one reply.

    dense wrote: »
    Well actually the US government sponsored NASA openly admits it is responsible for adding a half degree of "warming" to the US record for the 20th century, which accounts for most of the "warming" over that period.


    In fact nobody can say what the US "warming" was without that half a degree added.

    (Believe me, I have asked here)


    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/


    Where is this admitted in the link? You've just linked to the FAQ page.


    dense wrote: »

    The USGAO also found that almost 50% of US weather stations were incorrectly recording artificially warmer temperatures due to being sited close to heat sources.


    https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-800


    Can you point us towards some articles that explain how this has been used to create erroneous findings that have then been used to negative effect? You could be right but you haven't shown it here. All I see is a group that realised a weakness in their data gathering approach and wish to improve it.




    dense wrote: »
    The Tuvalu government claim that it and it's neighbours are being washed away because of rising sea levels yet recent research shows the island land mass is growing, not shrinking.



    https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
    From the very article you linked to:

    "The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) [URL="https://phys.org/tags/sea+level/"]sea level[/URL]  has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the  dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not  erosion."
 It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.
 The Auckland team says [URL="https://phys.org/tags/climate+change/"]climate change[/URL] remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.




    So they specifically state that sea levels are rising and climate change is an issue. The reason the island is growing is sedimentary deposits.



    dense wrote: »
    You'll also have heard of but probably forgotten the leaked emails from climate scientists discussing having to make up temperature records for the Southern hemisphere because comprehensive records don't exist.



    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
    I agree that this kind of behavior is scandalous and only results in people losing all faith in scientific findings. But since you believe in an all or nothing approach, then you must believe in intelligent design and that white asbestos is a-okay. For someone that complains about everyone else swallowing what they're fed without question, you should really do more due diligence on the sources you accept as fact.


    dense wrote: »
    Also don't forget YAD06 the single most influential tree in science that was used as a thermometer:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAD06
    Not sure what your point is here

    dense wrote: »

    Or the machinations surrounding the epic and heart rending drama surrounding the switching of methods necessary to claim sea temperatures have risen:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9225f2f24b2


    This has placed climate scientists in something of a bind of course because they now have to admit that the pause in global warming was now just another error that they'd previously endorsed, which they're now not endorsing.

    Bit like red wine being good for you this week, bad for you the next.
    Settled science and other fantasies.



    I'm not really familiar with this area, but this goes to my point about people not understanding the scientific process. Analyse the data, propose multiple hypothesis, see which one is most likely, review. It's a very powerful process but unfortunately leaves it exposed to attacks when people that don't understand it see them "rolling back" on an idea. It's not a weakness but a strength. Science should always be open to review and updating when new information is available.


    I'm not going to go into the rest. Its the usual ravings about this 97% number you seem to think we all put so much faith in.

    dense wrote: »
    I do recall asking those who want Ireland to be a leader in the fight against climate change to explain what percentage of "climate change" has been attributed to Ireland, and what percentage of "climate change" can potentially be averted by Ireland should Ireland implement the policies they advocate.



    That usually gets them rolling up their banners to go on to the next cause.

    You can't expect anybody else to do something you're not willing to do yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Did we put a hole in the Ozone layer?

    I am not up to date on the latest climate change denialism, but I presume this has been attacked also?

    Here we go again. Why don't you respond to any of Dense's points?


  • #173
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,251 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    mickdw wrote: »
    Well I'm a degree qualified Engineer so by definition I must have an ability to look at the facts and come to a reasonably logical conclusion even if not in my field.

    ^^^^ Dunning Kruger effect. You know so little about climate science that you don't even know enough to know what you are wrong about.

    Being a 'degree qualified engineer' has absolutely no bearing on an ability to understand atmospheric science or geoscience

    You can 'look at the facts' all you like, it's your choice of which 'facts' to look at that is causing you to come to the wrong conclusions.

    If you, a 'degree qualified engineer' are so good at assessing 'the facts' can you find me a single university science department or scientific institution with any reputation worth noting who agree with your assessment of the climate science?

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #174
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Here we go again. Why don't you respond to any of Dense's points?

    Someone else has responded. I just want to know if denialism has spread to the Ozone hole or what climate change denialsts think of that


  • #175
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,251 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Twenty Grand wrote: »
    Any evidence of government interference in the data collected? Or is this just another baseless soundbite?
    Lots of evidence, except it's always right wing climate deniers trying to restrict research and delete findings that they don't want people to know about.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/14/donald-trump-climate-change-mentions-government-websites

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #176
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,251 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    To Dense and the other kool-aid addicts

    There are two types of internet sources that deal with climate change

    Those who take the science seriously and represent the findings of the best studies as accurately as they can

    And those that deliberately spin, distort and lie about the science and report only the stories that promote their denialist agenda

    An Oxford Study in 2017 shows that there are no 'in between' sources. One side tries to be honest, the other side tries only to promote one agenda.
    (I'm talking about internet blogs that disseminate the information rather than academic journals that publish the data)
    We found a clear separation between the 45 science-based blogs and the 45 science-denier blogs. The two groups took diametrically opposite positions on the “scientific uncertainty” frame—specifically regarding the threats posed by AGW to polar bears and their Arctic-ice habitat. Scientific blogs provided convincing evidence that AGW poses a threat to both, whereas most denier blogs did not (figure 1). Science-based blogs overwhelmingly used the frame of established scientific certainties and supported arguments with the published literature affirming that warming is rapidly reducing seasonal Arctic sea-ice extent and threatening the mid- to longer-term survival of polar bears, whereas those written by deniers did not (figure 2). Science-denier blogs instead focused on the remaining uncertainties regarding the effects of AGW on Arctic ice extent, suggesting that those uncertainties cast doubt on the present and future demographic trends of polar bears.
    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513
    Fig 1
    20171130-171130m_bix133fig1.jpeg
    Fig 2
    bix133fig2.jpeg?w=1024

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #177
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Akrasia wrote: »
    ^^^^ Dunning Kruger effect. You know so little about climate science that you don't even know enough to know what you are wrong about.

    Being a 'degree qualified engineer' has absolutely no bearing on an ability to understand atmospheric science or geoscience

    You can 'look at the facts' all you like, it's your choice of which 'facts' to look at that is causing you to come to the wrong conclusions.

    If you, a 'degree qualified engineer' are so good at assessing 'the facts' can you find me a single university science department or scientific institution with any reputation worth noting who agree with your assessment of the climate science?

    If he is a degree certified engineer then he should be able to see some of the problems with the post by Dense.


  • #178
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »

    Here's the main one, from Cook and friends.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024


    Less than a third of the analysed 12000 research papers endorsed AGW.

    Yet by the time statistics were twisted into compliance, this had turned into 97% of scientists after Barack O'Bama apparently misread the abstract.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160?lang=en

    The ultimate government interference.


    #climatejustice

    Ill take this one.

    In the abstract this is the first paragraph
    examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

    So that was a search for papers that mentioned global warming. For instance could have been

    "Global warming and its effects on Agriculture"

    or

    "Global climate change and its effects on soybean production in the US"

    67% of these papers were, as the abstract said, neutral on the causes of global warming, since that wasn't the remit of the articles. They were talking about the effects of it.


    Of the rest who did give an opinion ( in other words the actual papers examining the cause).
    32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain

    Therefore
    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

    and
    Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.


  • #179
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    So not only did Dense not really understand his link, none of the commentators applauding the link understood it either. I suppose none of them actually clicked on it.


  • #180
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,251 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    So not only did Dense not really understand his link, none of the commentators applauding the link understood it either. I suppose none of them actually clicked on it.

    Dense doesn't understand the link on purpose.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • #181
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Can I ask what a "degree certified engineer" is? Asking out of curiosity as I'm not familiar with the term.


Advertisement