Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 04:53pm PT
|
Yes Ron. And as we've stated many times, the temps are going UP faster than ever right now, and we know why.
How come you don't care for the young ones?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
|
The Chief, Liberal Ideologist is a big word for such a little man. Did you recently learn that from your troupe leader?
And, if you could read, you'd see that I'm not about the political ramifications of AWG, but rather the science behind it. Remember, it's me who keeps saying that the physics behind AWG have nothing to do with the economic policies.
You're the one who keeps bringing up the political shtick here. I imagine that's because your troupe leader told you to hammer that, cause you've shown you don't have the mental capacity to think up a point on your own.
Now let's have some fun, show us that picture of you throwing the finger again, would you please?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 05:09pm PT
|
Oh my, I see that The Chief is trying to prove that 95+% of the worlds climate scientists are wrong about the science...by using junk science he steals from propaganda blogs.
Will wonders never cease?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I'm not interested in any studies like the recent one by John Cook, that disqualified 2/3rds of their sample, and played fast and loose with the remainder to get their results.
Who told you that Cook et al. did these terrible things?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Go ahead, Sketch, show what you know and how you know it about Cook.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
According to the graph below, we still have a ways to go in order to reach the temps of the last three glaciation periods.
First of all you mean inter-glacial period.
Second of all you don't even know what you are looking at. The last interglacial was around 70k ypb (OIS 3) and we are well over that mark. OIS 5 @125k ybp and OIS @190ybp.
Basic Quaternary Stratigraphy knowledge. Which, has little application in this argument but I suppose it's all you got. Which means you got nothing.
And for what it's worth my graduate advisor told us early on that we should be able to draw the sea level curve on the back of a bar napkin and explain it for at least the latter part of the Quaternary.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Sketch, I've read Cook et al. Have you? Tell me how you know that what a right-wing columnist opined in Forbes is true.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Have you read the criticisms of his study? Have you read the public comments by scientists who disagreed with Cook's assertion that they supported his position?
Yes, I have. Richard Tol made a fool of himself, didn't he? That rejection letter when he tried to publish his diatribe as a journal contribution was priceless. Most of the bloggers who attacked Cook pretty quickly gave away that they had not read the paper. So I'll ask again, have you read it?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Why are you talking about the last 100 million years when I'm talking about the last two million? Wiki Quaternary I guess?
According to what and whom?
LOL!
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Why are you limiting yourself to two million?
That you have to ask that question shows how little you know about what you are talking about.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Mother Jones or some other bias LIBERAL study^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's f*#king hilarious. That's what you assume and then accuse my source of being bias? you're predisposition to being biased is blatant.
Though watching chuff fail around is entertaining i'm going to enjoy the sunset on top of the First Flat.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 06:24pm PT
|
The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.
Ho boy, The Chief falls for it every time...
Gobble gobble gobble, eat up that Heartland propaganda!
Remember who the tobacco industry turned to to white-wash their product!!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
You mean these guys who were so desperate to win at all costs and fell for the bullshet ideology like you clowns...
You mean, guys like these:
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I'm here .....
I know everything .......
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
No. But I've read enough to know it's BS.
No, you have not. You're trying to fake it based on what you've read by people who agree with your politics. It sounds like you don't and can't read actual science, but if you think you can, take a look at the actual Cook et al. paper (it's free!) and find something in that which you believe is a lie.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 07:17pm PT
|
And did you not state that YOU SMOKED BITD, KMAN???
Umm, The Chief, no. I did not ever state that I smoked.
Never smoked, never will.
Got any more foolish things you need to post today?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 07:33pm PT
|
My bad KMAN.
LOL. Confuse me with Bruce all you want, I like the way he writes prose.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
So is there anybody other than Ron, Rick, Rick, and sketchy out there? It depends on what you mean--
the alarmists like to spin it so that anyone who is slightly less panicked than they are is a "denier" who rejects "science," and it doesn't take long for them to let loose with the insults. That gets old fast, so a lot of us have probably stopped posting on this thread, in whole or at least in part.
I imagine there's a silent majority that has no problem accepting that human released CO2 has caused and will continue to cause some warming, but also takes notice of things like:
 as reported in mainstream, credible publications such as the Economist, the global warming industry has tended to exaggerate the problem,
at least some thought leaders question the utility of at least some aspects of the alarmists beloved "models"; not just that the current models need to be improved, but that the whole enterprise just doesn't and won't work (consider an analogy to actively managed equity mutual funds, that on average underperform indexed funds, once fees are accounted for. It's not just that the current group of stock pickers suck; it's that their "models" will never work). I don't have any deep knowledge of whether this is correct, but it's notable to me how much hostility this observation has engendered.
just as there's an industry based on extracting and using fossil fuels, there's now an industry based on government subsidies to various "industries," climate change "experts," and so on. We recognize that there's bias on both sides, and so we tend to take everything with a grain of salt.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
You can keep on with the unsupported claims. It doesn't change the fact that Cook's claims are little more than dishonest propaganda.
Sketch, my claims aren't unsupported -- I've actually read the paper, while you're flailing to hide the fact that you haven't. I'll help you out, here's the abstract. Where's your lie?
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
During their lifetime, idiot.
One problem with that question form is that it mixes up belief about the physical reality with a respondent age effect, which also is real. "In your lifetime" has different meanings to a 20 and 80 year old.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!