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

dense · 01-08-2018 10:44AM

xckjoo wrote: »

Here's what you said that I was responding to:

Don't see a mention of US in that..... What was that about goalposts?

You clearly missed this then, which is what I posted:

These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990.

Which you somehow mistook to mean the global mean.

xckjoo · 01-08-2018 10:48AM

dense wrote: »

You clearly missed this then, which is what I posted:

Which you somehow mistook to mean the global mean.

No no. I read what you said and then read what you (badly) linked to and pointed out the lines that you conveniently left out of your post. The fact that it has no impact on the global mean just goes to show that this is just another meaningless argument that tries to nit-pick people into submission.

keffiyeh · 01-08-2018 10:51AM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Did you find that out on a ten minute youtube video?

No, I like questioning things rather than attaching myself to causes that are currently fashionable. Read the link I sent. he explains why it's horse****

Questioning things that would generally help if they were followed anyway? Why? Why not just be more environmentally conscious? Sticking it to the 'lefties'? Also how do you explain China's pollution problem, and basically any large city's? There's your proof that pollution is man made; and pollution literally heats up the air mate. Not to mention the chemicals present. I am astounded we're still having this argument in 2018. Are you a flat earther too? Anti-vaxxer?

dense · 01-08-2018 10:57AM

xckjoo wrote: »

No no. I read what you said and then read what you (badly) linked to and pointed out the lines that you conveniently left out of your post. The fact that it has no impact on the global mean just goes to show that this is just another meaningless argument that tries to nit-pick people into submission.

I asked what the US warming for the period was without the half degree of manually added adjustments.

Sorry if that's upsetting you and forcing you to say I said something else.

It's not a credible tactic in a debate.

PS? How can something be "badly" linked?

The link functions perfectly and says what I said it says.

dense · 01-08-2018 11:04AM

In my opinion a big part of the problem for people is that they have been fed this 97% line by their teachers, lecturers and others who they trust, and who should know better, even a POTUS.

It cannot be expected to be easy for people to come to terms with the realisation that it is fake.

And that accounts for the refusal to acknowledge it to be so.

kylith · 01-08-2018 11:13AM

xckjoo · 01-08-2018 11:32AM

dense wrote: »

I asked what the US warming for the period was without the half degree of manually added adjustments.

Sorry if that's upsetting you and forcing you to say I said something else.

It's not a credible tactic in a debate.

PS? How can something be "badly" linked?

The link functions perfectly and says what I said it says.

I literally quoted the post in which you asked a question and I then answered it. How do you equate that with

dense wrote: »

forcing you to say I said something else.

?

But again this is just a diversionary tactic. The real point is that your fixation on the US issue is meaningless.

You linked "badly" by linking to the parent page while only wanting to discuss a single sentence in the midst of hundreds. Not only did you not link to the question itself (even though the web site graciously provided hyperlinks to do just that), you then #1 didn't mention what question you were talking about and #2 want to ignore the whole paragraph around that sentence that puts it in context.

I've no problem with you calling out bad science as it's a particular bug-bear of mine too, but you haven't once done that despite what you seem to think. I can't figure out if you're just trying to point out poor science or you've some other agenda.

Here's a simple direct question for you. Do you believe human activity is causing any impact on the climate, or do you think it's all just the natural cycle?

Akrasia · 01-08-2018 11:45AM

dense wrote: »

In my opinion a big part of the problem for people is that they have been fed this 97% line by their teachers, lecturers and others who they trust, and who should know better, even a POTUS.

It cannot be expected to be easy for people to come to terms with the realisation that it is fake.

And that accounts for the refusal to acknowledge it to be so.

How dare those educators and public representatives accurately reflect the science on one of the most vital issues of our time

The evidence is overwhelming on one side, those who think its not happening or not worth acting are so wrong that its not even funny anymore.

The only debate worth having now is how we should act. Not whether we should act.

gargargar · 01-08-2018 12:23PM

dense wrote: »

Just to clarify, before you go any further, how many climate scientists are there?

The number please, and then what exactly you believe that 97% of them have said?

There is a table (Table 3) which specifies the percentage breakdown where they specify a position on AGW

97.1 Endorse, 1.9 reject and 1% uncertain. The other papers don't specify a postion on it. Seems straightforward enough.

Akrasia · 01-08-2018 12:40PM

gargargar wrote: »

There is a table (Table 3) which specifies the percentage breakdown where they specify a position on AGW

97.1 Endorse, 1.9 reject and 1% uncertain. The other papers don't specify a postion on it. Seems straightforward enough.

Dense thinks that the papers that are focused on understanding aspects of climate change don't think climate change is happening

Just like all the papers that talk about atmospheric science but don't specifically say the earth isn't flat must also not believe the earth is round.

dense · 01-08-2018 01:01PM

xckjoo wrote: »

I literally quoted the post in which you asked a question and I then answered it. How do you equate that with
?

But again this is just a diversionary tactic. The real point is that your fixation on the US issue is meaningless.

You linked "badly" by linking to the parent page while only wanting to discuss a single sentence in the midst of hundreds. Not only did you not link to the question itself (even though the web site graciously provided hyperlinks to do just that), you then #1 didn't mention what question you were talking about and #2 want to ignore the whole paragraph around that sentence that puts it in context.

I'm not sure how you could confuse US with global, you still haven't explained?

xckjoo wrote: »

I've no problem with you calling out bad science as it's a particular bug-bear of mine too, but you haven't once done that despite what you seem to think. I can't figure out if you're just trying to point out poor science or you've some other agenda.

I take that as an admission that this effort at creating a fake 97% is bad science.

xckjoo wrote: »

Here's a simple direct question for you. Do you believe human activity is causing any impact on the climate, or do you think it's all just the natural cycle?

I have asked on the most recent debate on the weather forum for evidence of weather being manipulated by human activities.

Even the most ardent of supporters of AGW cannot present any evidence of any impact of human activities that cannot be explained by natural variability, including sea level rises or floods that do not take into account isostatic movement.

Taking temperatures into account they say that early records are unreliable when it suits, and cannot provide a defined baseline to which they say we should be aiming to keep a hypothetical 1.5°c rise in temperatures below.

It is pure bunkum.

Eventually they concede that their climate change scenarios are not occurring, but are expected to occur at some point in the future, which conveniently isolates then from having to give evidence of present day weather and climate manipulation by human activity.

The hysteria is driven by a small number of political scientists pursuing a left wing political agenda which the media promotes, evidence of which I supplied earlier, with RTE publishing fake temperature record news.

Dohnjoe · 01-08-2018 01:08PM

dense wrote: »

The hysteria is driven by a small number

It's the overwhelming consensus by experts

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

xckjoo · 01-08-2018 01:43PM

dense wrote: »

I'm not sure how you could confuse US with global, you still haven't explained?

I didn't confuse anything. You didn't specify and I just read more than the one sentence you want to focus on. But once again you try and drag the topic down a unrelated alley since you've nothing of substance to say.

dense wrote: »

I take that as an admission that this effort at creating a fake 97% is bad science.

Your insistence on trying to drag this into everything is tiresome and once again proof you've nothing relevant to discuss. Take it however you want, I'm not engaging in this weird little obsession you have.

dense wrote: »

I have asked on the most recent debate on the weather forum for evidence of weather being manipulated by human activities.

Even the most ardent of supporters of AGW cannot present any evidence of any impact of human activities that cannot be explained by natural variability, including sea level rises or floods that do not take into account isostatic movement.

Taking temperatures into account they say that early records are unreliable when it suits, and cannot provide a defined baseline to which they say we should be aiming to keep a hypothetical 1.5°c rise in temperatures below.

It is pure bunkum.

Eventually they concede that their climate change scenarios are not occurring, but are expected to occur at some point in the future, which conveniently isolates then from having to give evidence of present day weather and climate manipulation by human activity.

The hysteria is driven by a small number of political scientists pursuing a left wing political agenda which the media promotes, evidence of which I supplied earlier, with RTE publishing fake temperature record news.

So many words that say nothing. It's impressive in a way. You don't even link to this discussion where you supposedly changed the minds of so many people.

Is that a no? Your belief is that humans can't impact the climate?

dense · 01-08-2018 02:13PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's the overwhelming consensus by experts

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Whooooooossshhhhhh

Dohnjoe · 01-08-2018 02:49PM

dense wrote: »

Whooooooossshhhhhh

Whooosh? If memory serves me correctly you were on conspiracy forums promoting some bizarre personal notion that the UN, climate denialists, Bianca Jagger and lord knows who else were forming a New World Order bent on global control

That's your personal, subjective viewpoint. I'll side with the majority consensus of experts on this.

dense · 01-08-2018 02:54PM

xckjoo wrote: »

I didn't confuse anything. You didn't specify and I just read more than the one sentence you want to focus on. But once again you try and drag the topic down a unrelated alley since you've nothing of substance to say.

I apologise for this, to anyone who is finding this boring, but I would like to explain how claiming to not know I was talking about the US temperature record is fallacious, and I will demonstrate why.

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/

xckjoo wrote: »

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

In the link, which you were unhappy with.

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah yes. I was supposed to pick out the one line from a page of text that you decided to focus on. How foolish of me.

Well it was there, if you had looked.

xckjoo wrote: »

Here's what you said that I was responding to:
Don't see a mention of US in that..... What was that about goalposts?

Don't see a mention of US in that? That's odd isnt it? Having just read the link, from NASA, talking about the US temperature record being given an extra half degree of manually added warming, due to adjustments.

If you could not and still cannot find a mention of the US in what we were discussing, why were you claiming that a US temperature adjustment had no relevance to global values?

xckjoo wrote: »

So it literally states in the source you used to backup your claim that it has no relevance to the global values.

The "it" you are referring to right there is the US temperature record, isn't it?
The same one that you could find no mention of subsequently, even having discussed it.

dense · 01-08-2018 03:13PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Whooosh? If memory serves me correctly you were on conspiracy forums promoting some bizarre personal notion that the UN, climate denialists, Bianca Jagger and lord knows who else were forming a New World Order bent on global control

That's your personal, subjective viewpoint. I'll side with the majority consensus of experts on this.

Yes Dohnjoe, the UNFCCIPCCWMO agenda, we discussed it at length, didn't we.

Remember, Maurice Strong, the former UN carbon tax advocate Christiana Figueres, (now herself working for an oil company, see below), and the well known climate expert Bianca Jagger and her heralding of the new world order.

That was a very good thread.

https://twitter.com/CFigueres/status/997466131794485249

https://www.eni.com/docs/en_IT/enicom/company/governance/advisory-board/Christiana-Figueres-biography.pdf

Looking at ENI's consolidated report for 2018, they have nothing to fear by being advised by Ms. Figueres if their increasing growth in oil exploration is anything to go by.

Exploration & Production

Hydrocarbon production: the Company is forecasting a 4% increase for the FY 2018 vs. 2017 at a
Brent price scenario of 60 $/bbl, equalling to a production level of about 1.9 million boe/d. This growth
is expected to be driven by: continuing production ramp-up at the fields started up in 2017, particularly
in Egypt, Indonesia and Ghana, a larger contribution from the Kashagan, Goliat and Val d’Agri fields,
new fields start-ups in Angola, Libya and Ghana, as well as the contribution of the new venture in UAE.
These increases are expected to be partly offset principally by mature fields declines.

But her presence on the board will be comforting to the environmentalists.

Dohnjoe · 01-08-2018 03:18PM

dense wrote: »

we discussed

"Discussed". Your personal theories on New World Orders and climate change are your own. As mentioned I will go with expert consensus.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 01-08-2018 03:20PM

Sounds like a nice racket though if you could find a route into the 'industry'.

Diesel Exhaust Fluid for eg. I know you'd have to have loose morals but the money must be unbelievable.

dense · 01-08-2018 03:54PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As mentioned I will go with expert consensus.

I don't doubt you for a moment Dohnjoe

dense · 01-08-2018 04:02PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Sounds like a nice racket though if you could find a route into the 'industry'.

Diesel Exhaust Fluid for eg. I know you'd have to have loose morals but the money must be unbelievable.

Too right, if I were a younger non binary I'd be looking at doing something along the lines of a climate charity.

We excel in celebrating death and disaster here, anything to do with the famine or the Titanic are great draws.

If you could tie it all up with climate change you'd be on a real winner.

xckjoo · 01-08-2018 04:04PM

dense wrote: »

I apologise for this, to anyone who is finding this boring, but I would like to explain how claiming to not know I was talking about the US temperature record is fallacious, and I will demonstrate why.

In the link, which you were unhappy with.

Well it was there, if you had looked.

Don't see a mention of US in that? That's odd isnt it? Having just read the link, from NASA, talking about the US temperature record being given an extra half degree of manually added warming, due to adjustments.

If you could not and still cannot find a mention of the US in what we were discussing, why were you claiming that a US temperature adjustment had no relevance to global values?

The "it" you are referring to right there is the US temperature record, isn't it?
The same one that you could find no mention of subsequently, even having discussed it.

Here we go again focusing on one single thing and then pretending it validates everything you said. My apologies if I didn't notice that you specified the US in the first post. I was busy trying to figure out what part of the page of text you were talking about, which turned out to be a single sentence that you made no specific reference to in your original post (beyond some waffle about NASA conspiracies and half a degree, and I still don't understand what your points is with this). When I asked for clarification on what you meant you begrudgingly gave it and pretended it was obvious (just 99 out of the >3,000 words on the page). I've never stated that the webpage doesn't have any reference to the US, I stated you did not make it clear you are referring to the US. Now I see that you had mentioned it in the original post, before quickly ditching the mention of US in the second (to try and give whatever claim your making more weight perhaps?). But anyway. What does this 0.5C offset matter? According to the site you linked to it has no baring on the global average values (which are what matter).

It's funny how everyone seems to be unable to comprehend your posts properly, yet it's always their fault. Anyway, I'll leave it there. I'm currently not sure it's morally justifiable to argue with you.

Akrasia · 01-08-2018 05:12PM

dense wrote: »

Yes Dohnjoe, the UNFCCIPCCWMO agenda, we discussed it at length, didn't we.

Remember, Maurice Strong, the former UN carbon tax advocate Christiana Figueres, (now herself working for an oil company, see below), and the well known climate expert Bianca Jagger and her heralding of the new world order.

That was a very good thread.

https://twitter.com/CFigueres/status/997466131794485249

https://www.eni.com/docs/en_IT/enicom/company/governance/advisory-board/Christiana-Figueres-biography.pdf

Looking at ENI's consolidated report for 2018, they have nothing to fear by being advised by Ms. Figueres if their increasing growth in oil exploration is anything to go by.

But her presence on the board will be comforting to the environmentalists.

Lol

Akrasia · 01-08-2018 05:18PM

In other news, CO2 may be 'plant food' but it's not good for human brains

Studies have shown that increasing CO2 concentrations has serious effects on human cognition.

If we don't reduce CO2 emissions, we could reach 950ppm by 2100, and this can reduce cognitive ability by more than 15%, or more than 50% if we allow levels to reach 1400ppm

So even if you don't believe that CO2 affects climate at all, it is still toxic for human health and we shouldn't be geo-engineering the planet in ways that are harmful to human life.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/

The results astounded Mendell. Indoor air experts generally don’t consider carbon dioxide to be a health problem unless breathed at levels far higher, at which point it causes respiration changes. “I didn’t know what to think,” he says. There were “moderate” declines in decision making performance at 1,000 ppm compared to 600 ppm. At 2,500 ppm, the drop in mental capacity was “astonishingly large.”
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/

xckjoo · 01-08-2018 05:29PM

Akrasia wrote: »

In other news, CO2 may be 'plant food' but it's not good for human brains

Studies have shown that increasing CO2 concentrations has serious effects on human cognition.

If we don't reduce CO2 emissions, we could reach 950ppm by 2100, and this can reduce cognitive ability by more than 15%, or more than 50% if we allow levels to reach 1400ppm

So even if you don't believe that CO2 affects climate at all, it is still toxic for human health and we should geo-engineering the planet in ways that are harmful to human life.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/

What percentage of scientists agree with this?

Akrasia · 01-08-2018 08:33PM

xckjoo wrote: »

What percentage of scientists agree with this?

10,312%

dense · 01-08-2018 09:10PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Studies have shown that increasing CO2 concentrations has serious effects on human cognition.

It's already affected the cognitive ability of the early adopters.

Akrasia · 01-08-2018 09:58PM

dense wrote: »

It's already affected the cognitive ability of the early adopters.

That doesn't make any sense

keffiyeh · 01-08-2018 10:23PM

keffiyeh wrote: »

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Did you find that out on a ten minute youtube video?

No, I like questioning things rather than attaching myself to causes that are currently fashionable. Read the link I sent. he explains why it's horse****

Questioning things that would generally help if they were followed anyway? Why? Why not just be more environmentally conscious? Sticking it to the 'lefties'? Also how do you explain China's pollution problem, and basically any large city's? There's your proof that pollution is man made; and pollution literally heats up the air mate. Not to mention the chemicals present. I am astounded we're still having this argument in 2018. Are you a flat earther too? Anti-vaxxer?

Care to address this, climate change deniers, or you simply can't and are going to cling to the *possibility* of an inflated percentage being out there?

WinnyThePoo · 01-08-2018 10:30PM

Akrasia wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense

Haven't you learned

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

Comments