TheNewTeddy Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 40 or even 50 years is not enough to detect true change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) no we can't agree...dealing with climate change problems as they occur is like changing the oil in your car after the engine has seized up... dealing with problems as they appear is TOO LATE!...the problems/effects were decades in the making, what we are seeing happen now to the worlds climate began decades if not a couple of centuries ago...climate change that is coming 40 yrs from now is already in progress there is no stopping it, to prevent worse damage a hundred or two hundred years from now needs to be dealt with today... and if you don't accept climate change is man made then you can't solve or reduce the problem... Humans may or may not contribute to climate. Chances are, we do to a small degree. But not even close to what has been sold to us. The thing about environmentalism is - it makes people feel important in their lives. It's a big old world out there, and small people with small accomplishments need to feel like they matter. Real people with real accomplishments aren't as concerned about climate, because they are too busy accomplishing things, and they know that the earth will be Most of the world is made up of small followers. Their lives don't amount to much, so they latch onto things like Coldplay and "saving the world" to feel like they matter. Maybe you never built a successful company or bought a ferrari or got drunk in southern spain just for the weekend. But hey! You put your cans into blue box, so you are SAVING THE WORLD. Wow. A big accomplishment for a complete nobody. This is the appeal of environmentalism. Edited September 14, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Humans may or may not contribute to climate. Chances are, we do to a small degree. But not even close to what has been sold to us.and you know this how? because you're a climatologist??? na I didn't think so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 and you know this how? because you're a climatologist??? na I didn't think so This is just an observation, and I'm not sure if it applies to you, but I find it funny how a lot of people who make this argument will say "Shut up and agree with the the climate scientists because they're experts." but then will vehemently support economic policy from a no-nothing like Thomas Mulcair and ignore everything the consensus from economists. Neither 'science' is terribly exact and neither can account for the variables. Why isn't skepticism acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) and you know this how? because you're a climatologist??? na I didn't think so What's a climatologist? A guy who used to be a small time schlepp of academia, who all of a sudden is getting huge grants to study arctic krill. God bless these port hacks. Restoring our belief in the almighty dollar. It's amazing how much money made it's way into climate studies after Al Gore's fantastically fraudulent movie. Michael Mann. Edited September 14, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Humans may or may not contribute to climate. Chances are, we do to a small degree. Jer, where has your expertise been all this time! In any case, there is always room for fresh meat! c'mon Jer, step up and substantiate your "may or may not... chances... to a small degree" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Neither 'science' is terribly exact and neither can account for the variables. Why isn't skepticism acceptable? as stated many, many times over... climate science, any science, is predicated upon skepticism. Knowledge advances in climate science, in any science, result from analysis/study that either refutes, complements or adds new understandings. Overt denial of those facets of climate science that are incontrovertible fact is not skepticism. Purported skepticism that can't provide legitimate alternate causal tie/linkage is 'weak/suspect skepticism'. No-nothings who proclaim their denial, for the sake of denial, while touting their supposed skeptics are fake skeptics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 I wonder if we took the billins dalton watsed on his green energy plan citation request Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Jer, where has your expertise been all this time! In any case, there is always room for fresh meat! c'mon Jer, step up and substantiate your "may or may not... chances... to a small degree" Better yet, why don't you step up and substantiate your claims. After all, I'm not the chicken little here, you are. Oh wait. you'd better "hide the decline" first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Humans may or may not contribute to climate. Chances are, we do to a small degree. But not even close to what has been sold to us. ... Real people with real accomplishments aren't as concerned about climate, because they are too busy accomplishing things, and they know that the earth will be So you make a claim that refutes decades of research by scientists that spend their lives studying these things and you don't back it up with anything. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it's "not even close to what has been sold to us." What do you mean by "what has been sold to us" anyway? Do you mean the scientific research or do you mean activists and advocacy groups? They're different things and you need to make clear what you're talking about. Once we're clear on that, maybe you could then tell me what specific claims you take issue with and what evidence you have read or seen that disputes those claims. The musings of a dead comedian aren't a persuasive argument against scientific consensus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 Neither 'science' is terribly exact and neither can account for the variables. Why isn't skepticism acceptable? Skepticism is perfectly acceptable and in fact encouraged in the scientific community. It's the basis for the creation of knowledge. Uneducated opinion and untested hypothesizing on the other hand.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) Better yet, why don't you step up and substantiate your claims. After all, I'm not the chicken little here, you are. MLW member waldo has provided substantive support for the claims he has made on climate change science. You've provided a clip from a dead comedian. Do you have even a modicum of self-awareness? Edited September 14, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 So you make a claim that refutes decades of research by scientists that spend their lives studying these things and you don't back it up with anything. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it's "not even close to what has been sold to us." What do you mean by "what has been sold to us" anyway? Do you mean the scientific research or do you mean activists and advocacy groups? They're different things and you need to make clear what you're talking about. Once we're clear on that, maybe you could then tell me what specific claims you take issue with and what evidence you have read or seen that disputes those claims. The musings of a dead comedian aren't a persuasive argument against scientific consensus. The sad part about academia is that they tend to want to tell you how smart they are and how dumb you, the average dummy is. Even when everything they predicted was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 The sad part about academia is that they tend to want to tell you how smart they are and how dumb you, the average dummy is. Even when everything they predicted was wrong. Yes. Nice graph. Do you know what it means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yes. Nice graph. Do you know what it means? Yep. it means you are about to write some BS making excuses for why none of the geniuses' predictions came true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yep. it means you are about to write some BS making excuses for why none of the geniuses' predictions came true. Great scientific analysis. You want to try again and actually analyze the data and give an argument or are you just here to troll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Ok... I guess that question was too hard. It's a little unfair. You're not a scientist and you haven't seen the graphic in any sort of context. Let's do this. How about you go get someone credible's opinion on that graphic and post it to support your claims. Credible doesn't mean some fanatic posting a blog from his mother's basement. It means professionals in the field. People that are actually dedicated to studying this topic and who have published peer-reviewed literature on the topic. So how about that? You don't even have to analyze it yourself. Just find someone credible to analyze it for you and backup your claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Credible doesn't mean some fanatic posting a blog from his mother's basement. It means professionals in the field.Lovely circular logic. We have a field where professionals who deviate from the consensus are publicly vilified and you say that only professionals from that field are qualifies. Nonsense. Not everybody is qualified to interpret these graphs but there are plenty of people with qualifications in related fields that are able to understand and correctly interpret them.The fact is temperatures have not kept up with IPCC projections but that is partially due to differences in the emissions scenarios but also partially due to the fact that they over estimate the amount of warming. The climate priests love to fudge by claiming that the models are 'consistent with reality' as long as one model has one outlying run that is close to the actual temperatures. It is a pathetic rationalization that is a insult to people who care about science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Ok... I guess that question was too hard. It's a little unfair. You're not a scientist and you haven't seen the graphic in any sort of context. Let's do this. How about you go get someone credible's opinion on that graphic and post it to support your claims. Credible doesn't mean some fanatic posting a blog from his mother's basement. It means professionals in the field. People that are actually dedicated to studying this topic and who have published peer-reviewed literature on the topic. So how about that? You don't even have to analyze it yourself. Just find someone credible to analyze it for you and backup your claims. It's not very difficult to analyze, genius. Climate scientists predicted something that never happened. Parse it all you want. The fact of the matter is, the world isn't ending, the world is fine. I know you find that hard to accept, but I suppose you'll have to move on to some other major project, since marching down the road to "save the world" has turned out to be a bit of a bust. But let's get down to brass tax here: It's kind of a let down. I was looking forward to warmer winters. Edited September 15, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Better yet, why don't you step up and substantiate your claims. After all, I'm not the chicken little here, you are. Oh wait. you'd better "hide the decline" first. I have a few years of doing just that on MLW... like I said, I welcome fresh meat? Why don't you showcase your idiocy with the "hide the decline" meme, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 The sad part about academia is that they tend to want to tell you how smart they are and how dumb you, the average dummy is. are your denier academia just better scientists Jer? What are they waiting for... what are they holding back? Even when everything they predicted was wrong. everything predicted wrong Jer? Everything! Let's play - that's back to 1990, the very first IPCC report - the SAR. The stimulation scenarios associated with the respective models were the first iterations... GHG forcing levels were less precise then they are today. The FAR simulations were also run against models with differing climate sensitivities. These were the first ever IPCC projections made. Science advances/improves - go figure. A significant point is one I've beat upon many times over in assorted MLW climate change related threads. Your linked graph references the HadCrut3 dataset that is known to be the least warm of all surface temperature datasets (the reasons are well understood/documented... if you persist I will quote you them from an earlier MLW thread/post). The article that associates with your linked graph was written in June 2011... at that point in time the HadCrut version would be '3' (HadCrut3). Your graph showing the UAH satellite data is a relative non-starter in relation to 1990 IPCC projections as reflected against the referenced global-mean surface air temperature. The fact 'your guy' included the satellite reference is laughable. are you with me so far Jer? Have a look at another graph... one updated to include new GHG forcing levels; one updated to reflect upon the more representative GISTemp surface temperature dataset. (outer lighter blue lines are the boundary ranges for sensitivity of the IPCC FAR projections; the darker blue line reflects the GHG changes observed in relation to the best sensitivity level definition of that time (2.5°C); the red line is the observed global surface temperature associated with a 5-year running average of the GISTEMP dataset). Are you liking this graph a little better Jer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 are your denier academia just better scientists Jer? What are they waiting for... what are they holding back? everything predicted wrong Jer? Everything! Let's play - that's back to 1990, the very first IPCC report - the SAR. The stimulation scenarios associated with the respective models were the first iterations... GHG forcing levels were less precise then they are today. The FAR simulations were also run against models with differing climate sensitivities. These were the first ever IPCC projections made. Science advances/improves - go figure. A significant point is one I've beat upon many times over in assorted MLW climate change related threads. Your linked graph references the HadCrut3 dataset that is known to be the least warm of all surface temperature datasets (the reasons are well understood/documented... if you persist I will quote you them from an earlier MLW thread/post). The article that associates with your linked graph was written in June 2011... at that point in time the HadCrut version would be '3' (HadCrut3). Your graph showing the UAH satellite data is a relative non-starter in relation to 1990 IPCC projections as reflected against the referenced global-mean surface air temperature. The fact 'your guy' included the satellite reference is laughable. are you with me so far Jer? Have a look at another graph... one updated to include new GHG forcing levels; one updated to reflect upon the more representative GISTemp surface temperature dataset. (outer lighter blue lines are the boundary ranges for sensitivity of the IPCC FAR projections; the darker blue line reflects the GHG changes observed in relation to the best sensitivity level definition of that time (2.5°C); the red line is the observed global surface temperature associated with a 5-year running average of the GISTEMP dataset). Are you liking this graph a little better Jer? Is that a long verbose way of saying "we were wrong"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Is that a long verbose way of saying "we were wrong"? hahahaha I'm sorry. I was mistaken. I don't know why this is so funny. You're not a poor guy living in his mother's basement after all. You're an ACADEMIC. So you make $45K a year to wax poetic about why, even though the earth hasn't warmed significantly since 1998, the earth has actually warmed significantly since 1998. hahahahahahaha. This is too fun. Sorry. Please do continue. I'm entertained. Edited September 15, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Psst...I know it would seem like a lot to you, but educated people make way more than $45k a year, on average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete t teepee Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 hahahaha I'm sorry. I was mistaken. I don't know why this is so funny. You're not a poor guy living in his mother's basement after all. You're an ACADEMIC. So you make $45K a year to wax poetic about why, even though the earth hasn't warmed significantly since 1998, the earth has actually warmed significantly since 1998. hahahahahahaha. This is too fun. Sorry. Please do continue. I'm entertained. Thats it?!?! Not even a pointy fact stick to poke at the grizzly with?!? C'MON MAAAN! I MADE POPCORN FOR THIS!! :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.