Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Ah, I see now. You were not addressing me, you were calling me your bestest buddy.
Wow, you are in need of some real friends.
I'm just glad you were able to recognize it wasn't meant as a threat.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I need cold temps for my few remaining projects.
Then you'd enjoy it here, below zero last night and not a lot warmer during the day. Two or three feet of snow in the yard, at least that's good for snow sports and (I hope) freezing out a few noxious insects that like warmer winters. As Greg Laden put it,
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 01:26pm PT
|
I'm just glad you were able to recognize it wasn't meant as a threat.
Boy, so m I!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Funny to see the deniers think they understand data on which they have little or no background in.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
So are your reading skills............
You know what is funny,that we know how much Putin funds green orgs but cannot find how much the Kochs fund deniers,now that is
TOO FUNNY.....aye?
Deniers are Liars.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
UAH is fast off the mark publishing their January lower-troposphere temperatures. Things don't seem to be cooling down yet.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
"Still doesn't come close to the gov't funding of billions to prove the science."
That is what you said ,above.
This is what I posted,mr. reading comp.
Look at effin chart ,direct to your congress.
Look where it says research,yeah ,both of those billions and change.
The rest of that budget ,just as Splater said is NOT proving science.
It is paying OTHER expenditures.
Yes ,you are a good reader and you arefullofsh#t.
And pay attention and look at TGT's post about putin.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
"Or is that similar to last nights complete BS call on Edwardt's post. Another totally false post/accusation on your part. Which is actually typical for you. Posting totally false bullshet with absolutely nothing ref wise to validate it."
Try to follow,or do you remember what you even say.
Deletion is your friend,we know.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
"Still doesn't come close to the gov't funding of billions to prove the science."
You said this last nite and I pointed out your BS.
Still.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Look at your post before my own,Last night,My statement was about yours.
Or did you delete that?www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&tn=26740
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
EdwardT
Cherry picking? I posted two examples of UK Met Office's predictions, which involved changes through 2014, and you see it as cherry picking "random quotes".
I posted a response to your apparent interpretation of the "predictions" If not cherry picking, your comments are pretty shallow, you apparently didn't even read the paper.
I don't know how much is spent debunking the findings of the climate science community. It's probably less than one percent of what's spent reaching those findings. More or less.
this statement is an example of how little you understand the scientific process... I'd argue that the entirety of the Govt's funding of the science is involved with "debunking" the findings. The whole point of scientific process is to find out what works and what does not work. You can question that, but you have no basis for the questioning... perhaps you could explain yourself a bit better.
The fact that the denier blogs have raised issues which have been addressed, and found to be non-issues doesn't at all imply that the science hasn't been very critical of all the issues. The science brings its critical view on all the work being done.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
You said this last nite and I pointed out your BS.
Still.
How so? The US government provides billions (annually) for climate change research. No doubt, the US government is not the only source of funding.
So far, we've seen a few million going to deniers. The New York Times described the Heartland Institute as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism." The Heartland Institutes total budget is around 6 million dollars.
K-man talks talks about deniers believing in "a conspiracy that's propagated by thousands of scientists across multiple countries for multiple decades", while others talk about the conspiratorial dark money funding of deniers. Maybe you guys should shelve the conspiracy theories.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the USG is not funding political action, it's funding science...
it is silly to compare that funding with the funding involved in the politics of climate change.
And it is very difficult to determine how much of the political action dollars are actually being spent on it. Given the huge amounts of money at stake, especially in costing the reserves of fossil fuels, and the importance of energy in general, that there is a relatively large amount of money involved in the political process.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 6, 2015 - 08:23pm PT
|
K-man talks talks about deniers believing in "a conspiracy that's propagated by thousands of scientists across multiple countries for multiple decades".
EdwardT,
Do you believe the reports from the IPCC, and specifically this summary from the Fifth Assessment: Summary for Policymakers
If not, can you explain why you do not believe these scientific findings?
I ask because it appears you have your doubts about the findings, and I am wondering how you can explain your disbelief when there have been rigorous international scientific studies going on for decades.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the point of the research is to understand the climate... that's something that is a work in progress.
It's not like making a toaster oven.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
6100 posts on climate by the chuff in 4.7 years and he still hasn't learned anything about science.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Ed Hartouni
I posted a response to your apparent interpretation of the "predictions" If not cherry picking, your comments are pretty shallow, you apparently didn't even read the paper.
What interpretation are you referring to?
Shallow comments? What are you referring to?
I "apparently didn't read the paper"? What led you to that conclusion?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief, you have no idea WTF you are asking about. You are loonie. You are one of the "CAGW"
"CAGW, for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.[1]
It's not clear just when or how the denialists adopted CAGW over from the acronym AGW (anthropogenic global warming) used by normal folk. The term was used in blog comments at the New York Times[2] and ScienceBlogs as early as 2008,[3] and is likely to have been used earlier. By around 2011 CAGW had become commonplace in denialist blogs such as those of Anthony Watts or Judith Curry, and over the next year or two essentially replaced AGW in such esteemed venues. Despite the qualifier, denialists apply the term indiscriminately to anything approximating the mainstream scientific view on climate, regardless of whether or not "catastrophic" outcomes are implied.
As for motivation, it's an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had lost the argument over plain old "anthropogenic global warming" — the basic physics of the problem have been known since the 19th century,[4] so that rejecting AGW outright paints oneself as a loon. Adding "catastrophic" gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism.[5] Sea level rises a foot? Just a few Pacific Islanders losing everything; no catastrophe. Sea level rises a few more feet? The Philippines get flooded out and we lose coastal cities like London and New York. But with a few trillion dollars we can move them inland; no catastrophe. And so on."
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Question for you little man...do you understand the difference between AGW and CAGW or do you think they mean the same thing??
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!