This is for my buddy Brian.
I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!
@bb0tin Interesting – thank you.
Thanks for that link. I had't seen such HD simulations before. The narrator's voice was OT. It felt like watching a promo for a new movie at first.
I'm not trying to convince, or cite sources to every comment. Skeptics are almost universally ex-Believers who were curious enough to look outside their usual potted sources, on their own.
All the "97% majority" etc. consensus numbers fall apart the moment you start digging.
The "debate" comment, btw, is with respect to the prominent spokespersons and promoters of AGW. They have been courteously and constantly invited to public debates, and have refused (usually un-courteously). They're (rightly) afraid.
You say "All the "97% majority" etc. consensus numbers fall apart the moment you start digging." Are you able to give me an example quoting a paper and data. I will research it and see if it has any validity.
You seem not to understand the scientific method. The "debate" takes place with research, and then peer-reviewed papers with data. If a denialist wants to debate a scientist then that is how it should be done. Expressing an opinion in a public forum, without backing it up with data, is not debate. When those opinions have been debunked as false multiple times, and when the links to the debunking have been provided but ignored, it is not debate.
You have not backed up a single opinion with data. All you have done is express wilful and determined ignorance. Your prime motivation seems to be to express your opinion, rather than take a prudent and considered approach to the issue of Climate Change. This would not matter to me except that you and your ilk are unnecessarily condemning coming generations to (mostly) avoidable suffering. You should be ashamed rather than proud.
Lemme tell you about the scientific method, as it has NEVER been applied in the AGW pseudo-science.
Observe, guess, speculate. Check a few possible patterns. (The "projections" of the General Circulation Models would qualify.)
Hypothesize, making make-or-break predictions, "falsification" tests. Try your very best to falsify your own hypothesis under all circumstances, and suggest and request more tests.
Once all efforts (well-thought through and well-funded and rigorously analysed by objective 3rd parties) to break the hypothesis have failed, you have a theory.
The theory must cover all known relevant phenomena, but is open to replacement by a more inclusive or efficient one at any point.
AGW pushers not only haven't attempted to defeat and falsify their own speculations, they have never offered such a test or acknowledged one is possible. Speculation, not even an hypothesis.
Sorry Brian. You are simply repeating the same behaviour I have described previously. Please give me an example where you believe the scientific consensus is incorrect. I will examine the evidence you provide and get back to you. Otherwise, you are only demonstrating buffoonery.
The theory must cover all known relevant phenomena[...]
That is plainly a wrong assertion and a warped view of how science works. Different lines of evidence can point to the same outcome/conclusion without explaining "it all". You wouldn't even acknowledge such a thing if presented with it as it would turn upside down your worldview.
I was defining a theory. Look up the formal definitions. What I gave is correct. AGW does not even qualify as a formal hypothesis. That requires falsification criteria, up front. THEN those criteria are tested rigorously to get to a theory. AGW research centers won't even release original data, or computer algorithms, etc., without being forced to legally, much less encourage probing challenge to their speculations. All are supposed to accept the "consensus" of the Climate Club/Clique.
There isn't even a formal area of study called Climatology or Climate Science. It's a pastiche of incomplete and incompetent borrowings from dozens of genuine sub-specialites.
Here's a recent examination of a few of thise issues:
Follow the commentary and links, if you dare.
You said "GW research centers won't even release original data, or computer algorithms, etc., without being forced to legally".
In New Zealand NIWA does the Climate Research. They make the raw data freely available here:
NIIWA also explicitly provide un-adjusted analysis here:
Here is a link to non-New Zealand raw data which you can examine:
You have once again been shown to be wrong.
I will look into your provided link. Expect to be shown to be wrong again. I will expect that it will make no difference to you.
PS: I will not get back to you quickly about the link you provided because I will actually do some research. This will take both time and effort.
"Skeptics are almost universally ex-Believers who were curious enough to look outside their usual potted sources, on their own. "
A recent e.g.:
"The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed."
The article you reference has this in it:
"Could mankind really force such a fundamental change in our environment, and so quickly?"
That question comes from pure ignorance. It just takes a minute for common sense - whilst knowing the huge amount of heat-trapping CO2 being put into the CO2 cycle in such a short timeframe (200 years) - that there must be some noticeable consequences.
The levels of CO2 have not been observed for the past 800.000 years so statements like "The global climate will continue to change, as it has always done,[...]" are not only ignorant but a strawman argument (see more responses by others to this kind of question on the TMC forum thread).
The author also referenced the Global Warming Swindle movie as being a personal tipping point to become a skeptic. Since then he doesn't seem to have had the time to find it being debunked thoroughly (or he hasn't found Google yet).
Same for his second "eye opening", mentioning the so called Climate Gate, which he also neglected to follow up on being officially investigated and refuted (email contents taken out of context by media etc.).
Of course, spending time on WUWT website of course keeps him in the endless loop of ignorance reenforcements by Monckton et al.
As to the 2nd blog entry wrt 97%: nothing valuable, mostly name-calling and personal critiquing, nothing about the subject.
Anyone interested, should rather read about the subject itself:
Forgot to reply to your previous post (re: judithcurry):
I yesterday actually read not only the blog but also the whole collection of comments there, puh! Long read! :)
There are plenty of knowledgable people and their arguments sound very technical/scientificy. I got the impression that some tried to reason against science coming from a single math formula they read in a text book and almost none has actually done any scientific research related to their arguments they made.
The logical error made there, imho, is this: because the current warming pause (it's a plateaue) might not be explainable to the sub-atomic level by science, makes your side automatically win.
Is there more science to be done? Sure. Will climate models improve? Sure as well. Will there be any significant scientific data and research from climate sceptics? *crickets*
I see that you have taken the time to post more debunked rubbish, yet have not taken the time to investigate and respond to any of the links I posted about GW data not being made available. At the start of this discussion I had no expectation that you would respond to any factual evidence as that is not how you function. I believe that you are not interested in what is true or false. You just want to express your opinion. I imagine you believe that you are an anti-establishment free-thinker. But the establishment is the status quo of fossil fuels and the current political/media system, which is what you are in effect supporting. Free-thinking actually requires thinking, yet you seem not to partake in it. You simply regurgitate rubbish from denial blogs, and when that is shown to be false, you move onto the next piece of debunked rubbish.
My hope at the start of this discussion, was that others may take the opportunity to follow some of the links and see that Global Warming is not some conspirational hoax by the entire scientific world community. I hope that the links will have been valuable in that regard. My hope for you is that at some point you will have an emotional epiphany and will re-examine your position.
Even if one takes the position that Global Warming is not true, the actions that we will be taken (since Global Warming is happening) make the world a better place anyway; cleaner, sustainable, politically more stable, self-sufficient etc. Your position is selfish and imprudent. At some point when the consequences of Global Warming can no longer be denied, you may be asked what you did to try and mitigate it. Your honest answer should be that you did not care for the future of the person who is asking you, because what was most important to you, above all else, was to express your (ignorant) opinion and try to prevent any such mitigation.
The Currie link you sent is rubbish of course. Here is a link as to why I say that, but I have no expectation that you will bother to read and consider it.
This is what your hoperd for ephinany may look like:
I will not be expending any more effort on this discussion. However, should I spot you making the same dishonest ignorant statements in other forum topics, I will simply post that people should volkerize for buffoon.
I watched Chasing Ice a few weeks ago and was pretty much rattled afterwards by both the imagery/scenery and what amount of work, physical stress and setbacks due to broken tech was endured in those years of filming.
There is also a related documentary named Extreme Ice by National Geographic around.
Those should be watched by everyone, regardless of worldview.
The "make the world a better place" delusion is almost the worst. Here's a response:
There are plenty more.
Thanks for that. I have also seen Chasing Ice but had not seen Extreme Ice.
Unaware if you know these YT channels already, thought I'd recommend them as I find them very interesting:
Yale Climate Forum
Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield)
Especially interesting, maybe even to Brian.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week (Peter Sinclair)
As a non-scientist, my views about climate change are those of a well-meaning, reasonably well-researched layman. Nevertheless I think it's foolish not to take some precautions against global warming. In essence, why take a chance? Even if climate change is much ado about nothing, what have we lost in driving a Tesla? Our fellow forum member Brian H would surely agree by his very presence that the Model S is a great car and worthy of ownership to those fortunate enough to have the means. Brian, wouldn't you agree it's prudent to avoid non-renewables if there are perfectly good alternatives available today?
Renewables are a disastrous illusion, as so far implemented. E.g.: World Bank funding for (actual affordable and functional) power generation in Africa is being scaled back in favour of "sustainable" energy. Like the existing system of burning wood and dung indoors to cook food and kill women and children. Etc.
If you consider e.g. Potholer interesting, you have a natural bent for proctology. Spend a week reading Climate Audit and Climate, Etc. and the world's #1 Science website the last 3 years running (the maximum allowed) (and current Blog of the Year) WattsUpWithThat if you want to get actual information. [Those you listed didn't even get enough votes to register, AFAIK.]
And hold off before you malign the readership; they are very top-heavy with doctorates and senior engineers, etc. They also often cite opposing articles, at length and verbatim, and withhold editorial comment. That's part of the secret sauce that makes them so valuable, instead of just tendentious.
Edit: #1 Science Blog ...
"Renewables are a disastrous illusion,[...]
What does the politics of the World Bank have to do with feasibility or economics of renewable energies?
However, I do agree with you that making good/fair politics to keep 3rd world countries in sight ought to be part of a global discussion.
But that issue does not make climate change go away and on the contrary even distracts from the fact, that extreme weather events can be more harmful to politically unstable regions, e.g. in 2010 extreme floods in Pakistan and Russia had a drought/heat wave not seen in 1,000 years, that made them stop their grain export. Subsequently grain prices spiked worldwide. And Pakistan isn't a stable democracy and has nukes.
Though we may not be able to connect these events directly to climate change itself, yet, raising the risks for more frequent extreme weather events may have an impact to any of us in a way shorter timeframe (in addition to risen sea level in 50 years etc.).
There is also ongoing research into the jet stream showing "bulges" linked to reduced arctic ice cover (less heat differential) causing prolonged winter or heat periods across e.g. the US in the past years (2012).
As to your favorite blog:
Popularity of any blog isn't relevant and not even my point.
If Peter Hadfield (Potholer) did any proctology, it was on Moncktons' arguments, not with me as a viewer.
[sarcasm]Still, who knows, I might have liked it...[/sarcasm]
So I tried googling to find "lists" of the best science blogs (and websites). All I found thus far did not even mention WattsUpWithThat. However, searching for "anthony watts debunked" I got 260K+ hits across many serious/mainstream scientific blogs and websites out there. And those make way more sense to my critical thinking.
As to your "secret sauce":
How many of those doctors (and engineers) are there out of the 40K+ scientists in the US alone and are actually related to the topic?
I don't ask my dentist to sell me car insurances, neither. He may have a personal opinion about them, but that doesn't mean he's dealing me actual facts.
Unless those people actually discuss within the scientific realm by doing actual research and publish peer-reviewed papers, it is not offering anything except misinformation to the public and legislature, discredits overall scientific research and plays into the hand of the oil/coal industry. Wrong research is discarded when disproved and new evidences lead to better understanding.
@tobi_ger & @bb0tin
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and links to worthwhile information on AGW. I couldn't agree with your comments and rebuttals more to the repetitive BS from Brian H. After reading his postings here and on similar topics from the General Topics thread, I am not inclinded to engage him in an endless debate that will go nowhere. He is a hard core denialist and is a lost cause IMHO. I wouldn't hold out for an epiphany from him, but you never know. Watching "Chasing Ice" for me was a reveting and sobering experience. I care passionately about this issue and am working constructively to address CO2 emmissions and hopefuly reduce impacts from AGW. Thanks for your efforts to clarify the truth on AGW for others on this Forum, who may be less informed.
Thanks for the feedback, it is very much appreciated.
Only your own honest research can enlighten you; this repetitious chanting of the warmist creed will be revealed in all its inanity when you dare get outside the famed "circle jerk" of pal-reviewed nonsense. Good luck!
I thought you were just trolling to get these guys rev'd up. However, I'm beginning to think you may actually believe what you are saying/writing.
That is really a shame because your initial posts gave me hope you were reasonably thoughtful. Forget the science, common sense will tell you we are consuming everything in sight at an alarming rate. There is simply no reason for this behavior apart from selfish, short sighted stupidity.
The God thing aside, the original post sums it up. Are you really advocating crapping on everything in your path?
Other than the AGW issue, I respect Brian, but lolachampcar, he's serious. Believes CO2 is a harmless gas, warming is good, people have no effect, Al Gore is in it for the bucks, and the 95 percent of scientists working in the field are just mislead.
I disagree of course. But we'll probably not see eye to eye until Florida is underwater, and pineapples grow in Canada.
@BrianH likes to use big words, and quasi-scientific language, but independent of all the false claims he makes, his dogmatic and impatient approach reveals a lack of critical thinking.
To all critical thinkers here (and there are quite a few of you): Unfortunately, you are wasting your time, debating with him! This is like religion to him.
Back to the original post: +1 @Lolachampcar. That is hilarious. Thanks for posting!
@Brian H. I have eyes and ears, and can relate my own personal observations, which tell me unequivally that AGW is real and happening in my life time. As a SCUBA diver with over 45 years of diving experience I can tell you that coral reefs that I have been diving over a long period are changing from better to worse in my lifetime. I see once healthy reefs dying due to bleaching and loss of zooxanthellae, due to warming. I see acidification in Washington State waters that now require Pacific oysters to be spawned in Hawaii and transported and re-transplanted in rearing areas because the pH of the water here now prevents natural spawning. I see dissolved oxygen depressions off the coast of Oregon and Washington State that are causing massive marine die-offs. I am a marine biologist and see the evidence for climate change all around me. I am not willing to take a chance that what I see and feel is happening is not real. I know it is real, and am unwilling to let things go on the way they are, as we drift like lemmings heading for the cliff and ultimate disaster. I sense that you don't care what happens to ensuing generations, but I do. Dr. James Hansen's book "Storms for my Grandchildren" lays out the convincing evidence for AGW from his 40+ years of research. I was fortunate enough to hear him speak on his strong convictions and urgency for action at the Citzens Climate Lobby (CCL) Annual Conference in Washington D.C. last month. I am a member of CCL, which is working on developing the political will to help legislator's pass a revenue neutral carbon tax on dirty, carbon based energy (coal, petroleum, natural gas), that would ramp up the true costs for carbon based energy and finally require this energy sector to start paying the externalities that they now pass on to the tax payers (impact on health costs, environmental degradation, BP Oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, etc.). I know I am just wasting my time writing this response, but I just wanted to let you know how wrong you are on this issue.
X Deutschland Site Besuchen