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?
These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990.
dense wrote: » You clearly missed this then, which is what I posted: Which you somehow mistook to mean the global mean.
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****
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Did you find that out on a ten minute youtube video?
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.
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.
dense wrote: » forcing you to say I said something else.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
dense wrote: » The hysteria is driven by a small number
dense wrote: » I'm not sure how you could confuse US with global, you still haven't explained?
dense wrote: » I take that as an admission that this effort at creating a fake 97% is bad science.
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.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's the overwhelming consensus by expertshttps://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
dense wrote: » Whooooooossshhhhhh
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.
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.
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.
xckjoo wrote: » So it literally states in the source you used to backup your claim that it has no relevance to the global values.
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.
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.
dense wrote: » we discussed
Dohnjoe wrote: » As mentioned I will go with expert consensus.
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.
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.
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/997466131794485249https://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.
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/
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/
xckjoo wrote: » What percentage of scientists agree with this?
Akrasia wrote: » Studies have shown that increasing CO2 concentrations has serious effects on human cognition.
dense wrote: » It's already affected the cognitive ability of the early adopters.
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?
Akrasia wrote: » That doesn't make any sense
