Climate change revisited

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

I shouldnt have commented, but I dont delete my posting mishaps, unless it is requested.

You do irritate me though, because it seems you dont really care at all about the topics you post in, you only wish to start trouble.

It isnt the Trouble, its the not really caring part.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Ive met you Ernie. You were all snake love and fire.

They dont teach reptile keeping in college.

Perhaps you came to see them as a way to make money. That was a mistake.

If your bitterness has surpassed your wonder that is a sad weakness on your part. Dont be jealous of people who still experience awe, or found another way to work and make a living through the vibrant curiosity that you seem to not value any more.

You dont give a damn about climate change politics. Please stop urinating here.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

Dr. Judith Curry should write an autobiographical book. She could call it. THE LAST SCIENTIST.
Image

A wise man once said, people are really stupid and a lot of them are dumber than that.

This funny and plain-spoken truth. Automatically brings to mind the Kool-Aid drinkers armed with their phony outrage and deep concerns. Sociological lemmings always at the ready to rally around whatever IMPORTANT issue is making the BIG headlines. To these mass consumers of glittering generalities. Science is a TV game show.The winner to be determined via a rigged popularity contest. A truth sourced from a colorful bow tie wearing Disney character. All the education needed for an informed opinion can be had by reading whatever headline is on the front page of USA today. The obtuse mentality that It must be true, it was on CNN. It's time for everyone to put on their tin foil hats !!!

ERNIE EISON

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Intelligent promotion of ones position doesn't lean on trite one liners or unconscious admissions of resentment.

Being intelligent in promoting a view means being effective.

When you read your posts, do you feel that is accomplished?

Do you want to look like you have a "problem" or do you want to be effective?

It is rarely possible to do both.

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

Here's a slight improvement:
This rant from Ernie brings to mind the Kool-Aid drinkers armed with their phony outrage and deep concerns. The sociological lemmings always at the ready to rally around whatever IMPORTANT issue is making the BIG headlines. To these mass consumers of corporate and foreign misinformation, science is a TV game show, the winner to be determined via a rigged popularity contest. A truth sourced from a colorful bow tie wearing Disney character. All the education needed for an informed opinion can be had by watching Fox and Friends. The obtuse mentality that It must be true, it was on Fox. It's time for everyone to put on their tin foil hats !!!

User avatar
El Garia
Posts: 722
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 3:39 pm
Location: Santa Clara Co. , CA

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by El Garia »

Why do you let Ernie live in your heads? :lol:

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

This may interest some:

https://www.isthishowyoufeel.com/

This was a project in which climate scientists were asked a rather unusual question - "How do you feel about climate change?"

A description:
Climate change is a complex and intimidating threat. You can't see it when you look out your bedroom window. Its impacts are often not immediately noticeable, nor are the benefits of acting against it.

Luckily there are a large group of passionate individuals who have dedicated their lives to studying climate change. These people write complex research papers, unpacking every aspect of climate change, analysing it thoroughly and clinically. They understand the numbers, the facts and the figures. They know what is causing it, what the impacts will be and how we can minimise these impacts.

But they're not robots. These scientists are mothers, fathers, grandparents, daughters. They are real people. And they're concerned.

Here's one scientist's response to the question:
I’m angry because the lack of effective action on climate change, despite the wealth not only of scientific information but also of solutions to reduce emissions, has now created a climate emergency.

The students are right. Their future is now being threatening by the greed of the wealthy fossil fuel elite, the lies of the Murdoch press, and the weakness of our political leaders. These people have no right to destroy my daughter’s future and that of her generation.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

With respect to the issue of climate change / global warming, I have previously mentioned it is best to let the scientific research continue to explore these issues as well as letting the weather tell its own story in coming years.

Below is a message received from son Ryan in Utah. It had four links but I have included just on link. In reading the information in that one link, I came across a box with the following message:
“Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World””

I suggest you access that link. You can either click on that box to access that narrative or enter the above in a web search to access the narrative.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had begun to pull together some links a few weeks back when I brought up the topic of grand solar minimum. I realize I won't be getting back to this any time soon, so will forward the links I found if you are interested.

https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts- ... lications/

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

This is probably the second-most used climate change denier myth.
the topic of grand solar minimum

The source for the following pasted material:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-acti ... vanced.htm

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

What the science says...

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.


Climate Myth...

It's the sun




As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

As for this:
it is best to let the scientific research continue to explore these issues as well as letting the weather tell its own story in coming years


Well, the weather is indeed telling its own story. Always has, always will. Hey,
  • the Atlantic hurricane season is now off to an earlier-than-usual start for the 6th straight year, and
  • the decade 2010-2019 was the hottest decade on record, and
  • in 2010, the same was true for the the decade 2000-2009, and
  • the last five years have been the five hottest years on record, and
  • record high temps are exceeding record low temps by at least a 2:1 margin, and
  • the oceans are 30% more acidic than they were at the dawn of the Industrial Age and by 2100 are likely to be 100% more (twice as) acidic...


it just goes on. Really, it does.

But don't believe your own damn lyin' eyes, just trust the alternative-facts guys.


Why bother having scientific research? I mean, if your answer to the question "what do you do with credible information of an urgent nature" is "oh - not a damned thing" - well then. I'm not sure what to offer or prescribe. You won't get my complicity or acquiescence.

Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3670
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 11:16 am
With respect to the issue of climate change / global warming, I have previously mentioned it is best to let the scientific research continue to explore these issues as well as letting the weather tell its own story in coming years.

Below is a message received from son Ryan in Utah. It had four links but I have included just on link. In reading the information in that one link, I came across a box with the following message:
“Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World””
I looked it up, and it appears to be a sensationalist title - the scientist in the article has been writing papers attacking climate change models since at least 1994, and back in 2013 predicted that we would hit a cooling cycle starting in 2015.

That prediction was obviously wildly off.


The topic of his book appears to generally be that climate is enormously difficult to predict, with numerous factors, and thus attempts to model the climate must use a great deal of simplification. From what I read it doesn't seem to argue "the Earth is not warming" so much as it argues "Yes, the Earth is warming, but we're unsure how much more it will warm or how unprecedented this is." Which probably is at least a somewhat defensible position.

At that point though, Richard, it's tough for me to see what your endgame is. You can look at mere land use statistics and see that humans have taken over far too much of the land surface of the Earth. It's obvious that we've cut/burned down too many forests, produce too much pollution. We're in the middle of a biodiversity crisis that you don't have to believe anything about global warming to see clearly with your own eyes. Not to mention that the way our oil dependence funds middle eastern wars, economic instability, and corrupt states like Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, etc....Stopping deforestation, reducing meat intake, pulling away from fossil fuels, reducing overconsumption in general...how are those bad things?

How are they not extremely necessary right now whether or not you want to deal with the obvious warming of the Earth that's accompanying them?

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

More from the weather - "warming has increased the likelihood of a hurricane developing into a major one of Category 3 or higher, with sustained winds greater than 110 miles an hour, by about 8 percent a decade."

So since 1979 the odds of a hurricane going major have increased about 26%. Nice one, humanity. Well played.
Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020 ... 1920849117
Abstract

Theoretical understanding of the thermodynamic controls on tropical cyclone (TC) wind intensity, as well as numerical simulations, implies a positive trend in TC intensity in a warming world. The global instrumental record of TC intensity, however, is known to be heterogeneous in both space and time and is generally unsuitable for global trend analysis. To address this, a homogenized data record based on satellite data was previously created for the period 1982–2009. The 28-y homogenized record exhibited increasing global TC intensity trends, but they were not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Based on observed trends in the thermodynamic mean state of the tropical environment during this period, however, it was argued that the 28-y period was likely close to, but shorter than, the time required for a statistically significant positive global TC intensity trend to appear. Here the homogenized global TC intensity record is extended to the 39-y period 1979–2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) increases are identified. Increases and trends are found in the exceedance probability and proportion of major (Saffir−Simpson categories 3 to 5) TC intensities, which is consistent with expectations based on theoretical understanding and trends identified in numerical simulations in warming scenarios. Major TCs pose, by far, the greatest threat to lives and property. Between the early and latter halves of the time period, the major TC exceedance probability increases by about 8% per decade, with a 95% CI of 2 to 15% per decade.
Significance

Tropical cyclones (TCs), and particularly major TCs, pose substantial risk to many regions around the globe. Identifying changes in this risk and determining causal factors for the changes is a critical element for taking steps toward adaptation. Theory and numerical models consistently link increasing TC intensity to a warming world, but confidence in this link is compromised by difficulties in detecting significant intensity trends in observations. These difficulties are largely caused by known heterogeneities in the past instrumental records of TCs. Here we address and reduce these heterogeneities and identify significant global trends in TC intensity over the past four decades. The results should serve to increase confidence in projections of increased TC intensity under continued warming.

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

From what I read it doesn't seem to argue "the Earth is not warming" so much as it argues "Yes, the Earth is warming, but we're unsure how much more it will warm or how unprecedented this is."
That's from the standard deniers' playbook. The next play is "well, we still don't know why it's warming so we'd better not do anything about it". It's like when seatbelts killed people by making it harder to escape a wrecked car, and smoking cigarettes didn't hurt people, but actually they were good for weight loss (hey, so is cancer, right?)

Horseshit.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

Horseshit doesn't get the last word.
That's right, it shouldn't. And that's why the last word belongs to Professor Judith Curry.


It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair.

ERNIE EISON

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

As for so-called ClimateGate, try FactCheck https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Summary

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

- The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.


Well there you go again, trying to let horseshit have the last word.
The question, What happened to Tucker Carlson? is worth answering. If we can figure out how an intelligent writer and conservative can go from writing National Magazine Award–nominated articles and being hailed by some of the best editors in the business, to shouting about immigrants on Fox News, perhaps we can understand what is happening to this country, or at least to journalism, in 2018.
Source - Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/tucker-carlson.php


Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

That's right, it shouldn't. And that's why the last word belongs to ....


The last word belongs to Richard West. He's describing Tucker Carlson, but also inadvertently describing our least-favorite narcissist here at FHF.
“It’s quite a remarkable tactic,” West explains, “because you don’t give people an opportunity to digest … I do believe he’s a conversational narcissist. He hijacks the conversation and contorts it to his own value structure.”

AEthelred
Posts: 41
Joined: July 16th, 2019, 9:56 am
Location: North Adams,Massachusetts

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by AEthelred »

88 fahrenheit in the Berkshire hills of Massachusetts yesterday in may,it must have topped 90 in Boston.There is something going on with the climate,that's for sure.

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

Well, a hot day is just a hot day, a hot night is just a hot night. But stack up enough of them over a few decades, and hell yeah something not funny is going on. In the 10 full years since the 2009 "climategate" full-on horseshit mentioned by what's his nuts - and recall, at that time, 2009 was the hottest year on record - we've had about 8 or 9 more hottest years on record.

Just let that sink in. And don't fall in with the horseshit-pitching, alternative-facts guys.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jonathon,
I my computer has been ‘misbehaving’. Scott Walters made some heroic efforts in my behalf but for unknown reasons, I was unable to post a response on the forum. So I took the computer in to have it serviced and now found it allows me to post a response.

I agree with a good deal of what you mentioned in your last paragraph. And of course, the primary issue is that of continued growth in the human population. For a number of years, I contributed to an organization trying to deal with that issue.

You mention “end game”. Similar to a number of threads I have started on this forum, my underlying goal has been to try and urge individuals to keep an open mind, examine all sides of issues, and think critically, And by example, I have tied to show how to disagree without being disagreeable. At this juncture and in this particular thread, it appears I have failed.

I had not revisited the ‘climate’ issue until my son Ryan in Utah recently sent me links dealing with the Solar Minimum. In making more searches on the web a couple of weeks ago, I found two interesting links which I sent to Ryan and have copied below which can be entered in a web search.

"The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current
NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature

In the first link, I suggest scrolling down and reading the narrative under the heading of ‘Speaking Out’. In the second WUWT link, if you click on ‘Climategate’ along the top bar, that in turn leads to some interesting reads. I urge everyone that reads this threat to educate yourselves on both sides of the climate change / global warming issue.

Richard F. Hoyer

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

my underlying goal has been to try and urge individuals to keep an open mind
In an earlier era of "the culture wars", righties used to say of lefties "Oh those poor dummies - look, their minds are so open their brains fell out". My my, how the wheel turns in ironic ways. Or maybe it was just projection all along.


examine all sides of issues, and think critically
There is Absolutely Nothing wrong with aspiring for that. Trying it, even. Doesn't mean it always works for someone. Gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk.


I found two interesting links which I sent to Ryan and have copied below which can be entered in a web search.
Richard, I have repeatedly mentioned, with constructive kindness, that 1) your "links" aren't functioning as such - the only way we can use them is as search terms in a search engine, and 2) how to actually insert a link here (look in the toolbar, to the right of "bold", "italics", etc, for the icon that resembles a pair of dice, just left of the icon that resembles a drop of water).

As a result of using your two search terms, I got these results:
1) "The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current
https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... ediate.htm

2) NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature
Image

which is located in the NOAA report here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202004

Said report includes the following unambiguous statement, which is highly suggested by the graphic, anyway:
The April 2020 globally averaged land and ocean surface temperature departure from average was the second highest for the month in the 141-year NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880.


In the search engine results, besides finding the links I provided, I also found what I think you meant to link, what you sent your son. Unfortunately, the stuff contained at those links is total horseshit. Although, I was seriously amused to see at WUPT that I could also read about toenail fungus, erectile dysfunction, and Clint Eastwood. Yeah, I wanna join you guys, and go there - not to NASA, NOAA, any country's Academy of Science, etc for the authoritative information on climate change.


There are no "two sides" to "is climate change happening", "why is it happening", or "what do we need to do right now about it".

Unless you consider one side to be the scientifically-derived, consensually-agreed, far and away most parsimonious explanation for what's causing what we are actually experincing, and the other side to be the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory steaming pile of horseshit.

I urge everyone that reads this threat to educate yourselves on both sides of the climate change / global warming issue.
So why don't you go to the links I provided, and try to educate yourself?

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

**********************************************************************


D'tUknowUrAnidiot.....Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

Dr. Tim Ball Defeats Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann’s Climate Lawsuit

BC Supreme Court ruling that Mann did commit data fraud. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked.

Dr. Tim Ball . Bachelor's degree with honors in geography from the University of Winnipeg, M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from Queen Mary University of London England.

Dr. Ball. Please, if you would,


Ernie Eison

Bonus; D'tUknowUrAnidiot

Further proof you are, if you think Tucker Carlson had any impact on Professor Judith A. Curry's concise testimony of the wrong doing found in climate science. Professor Curry. Please, if you would,



Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

Same old story, same old song and dance. You're a one-trick tired old nag, but still a seriously dependable horseshit producer. Good for you, you're just so amazingly full of shit!!!

Source: https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

(what the) Climate Myth (says)...

Hockey stick is broken

“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

...

A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

...

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

We have seen the other side served by a crown capped comix bully, and the respectable OG and its not strong no matter how stubborn the resolve. Or attention-starved. It isnt strong.

Jimi thanks for not letting the HS have the last word. Its important. Mature choices and changes in behavior need to be made.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

*****************************

Facts > Jimi HS

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer

Meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Huntsville , U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. Senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

This talk involves real education. The most honest breakdown of what is actually driving the scientific community as it applies today. Not forum banter, facts .

Dr. Roy Spencer. Please, if you would,



Ernie Eison

BONUS; Facts > Jimi HS

Climate scientist Michael Mann tells whopper at congressional science hearing


Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

Your pathological - perhaps conscious, perhaps subconscious - aversion to honesty cannot fail to impress me. In the bad way, yes, but it is impressive.

1) Roy Spencer is "a real scientist", with a PhD in meteorology. He did great work at NASA with temperature-monitoring satellites back in the 80s and 90s. He doesn't dispute that rapid warming of the oceans and atmosphere is happening. He just thinks it's natural, not human-induced. Of course it's possible to find a few people who hold alternative views about the mechanisms behind observed warming. Dr Spencer is one of them. Does that mean that what the vast majority of other scientists, of amazingly diverse educational and vocational backgrounds, who hold a very different view about the mechanisms behind observed warming, are wrong? No, not at all.

Incidentally, here's where the embedded video came from:
http://americafirstenergy.org/#close

Here's something about the event from its sponsor, the oh-so-full-of-shit Heartland Institute.
On August 7, The Heartland Institute will host its second America First Energy Conference (AFEC 2018) in New Orleans, Louisiana, one of the key states for America’s energy and refinery industry. The conference will feature approximately 30 speakers from government, industry, academia, and other think tanks speaking on 10 panels and three plenary sessions. We expect between 300 and 400 people to attend (INCLUDING YOU!), and we aim to attract state legislators, congressional staff, state think tank leaders, and private sector government relations and policy analysts.

The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s “war on fossil fuels” and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change.


2) As for the Kabuki theater show put on by the no-so-Honorable-looking Mr Higgins of Louisiana, why would anyone assign a non-zero value for truth content to it? It's 100% horseshit. Besides his readily apparent orientation ("Earth First! We'll drill Mars later!"), the guy seems to have major challenges with truth and honesty. He's got a charming Wiki bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Higgins



3) If you want to drop the "forum banter" and share what meteorologists have to say about climate change, why not just post something from the position statement of the American Meteorological Institute? Like this chillingly sober and clinical summary from here: https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/a ... e-change1/
Executive Summary
Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades. Its manifestation includes the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, intensification of the heaviest precipitation over continental areas, increasing upper-ocean acidity, increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes, reductions in Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and rising global sea level. The latitudinal and seasonal observations of the surface warming and the observed warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere are consistent with theoretical expectations from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability. The observed warming rate varies from place to place and from decade to decade because of natural climate variations, such as natural swings between El Niño and La Niña on time scales of two to seven years, and variations in ocean circulation in the Pacific and Atlantic basins on decadal to multi-decadal timescales. The influence of these relatively short-period fluctuations is factored into climate change analyses. These natural fluctuations have neither the magnitude nor the spatial characteristics to explain the observed warming of Earth’s average surface temperature over the past several decades. The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century.

Proxies, which are indirect measurements of past temperature obtained from archives, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake and marine sediments, and cave stalagmites, reveal that the rate and magnitude of the current global temperature change is likely exceptional in the context of the last two thousand years. Global temperatures were last on par with the present ones in the previous Interglacial Period (125,000 years ago), when sea level was 6–9 m (20–30 ft) higher than today. Projected warming over the next century will likely place global temperatures in a range not seen in millions of years of geologic history.

User avatar
BillMcGighan
Posts: 2355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:23 am
Location: Unicoi, TN

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by BillMcGighan »

$$$$$$$$ Hmmm $$$$$$$

Jimi, IMHO, I think you're being too hard on these speakers and bloggers. Just like the 90+ % of independent scientists who are concerned with the negative aspects of climate change, these naysayers are just ordinary people who are motivated only by their strong beliefs, nothing financial, nothing political.

I mean take Roy Spencer...

Roy Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database.

Spencer also is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org.
Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.

OK, maybe a bad example.
How about Judith Curry? She seems sincere.


Judith Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile[5], Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,
"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."



David Siegel of ClimateCurious.com
As an entrepreneur, certainly he has no money motivation to poopoo climate claims.

For nearly 90 years, the Siegel Energy Corporation has been one of Colorado's premier petroleum distributers. In 1927, after working for seven years for the Denver Navy Gas and Supply Company, Ben Siegel founded his own company as the bulk fuel distributer. Today a third Siegel generation continues the family tradition.

All that aside, I'm sure these all people are sincerely questioning independent scientists around the world because they care about us and our world's future. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I'm now going to mainline some lysol to fend off COVID because I believe everything from these type people.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

Negligent thinkers need not apply.

Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, PhD, Harvard University............ membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the list goes on. Without a doubt an eminent scientist in the field.

Professor Richard Lindzen On the Corruption of Climate Science

Please, Professor. If you would, Thank you.

Is Science Progressing? (featuring Richard Lindzen)


D'tUknowUrAnidiot TOTD

Polluting otherwise interesting threads with dunderheaded personal attacks against me. The contrived attempts to dismiss the content I've posted, featuring unedited testimonies of prominent scientists, presented by the scientist themselves. Has long since succumbed to ennui.

In the future consider staying in your own lane…… Arrivederci

ERNIE EISON

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

Oh look, here comes the manure cart guy again, fetching another load of aged horseshit, topped with just a little pungent material of his own issue.

- The video clip is from 2013.
- Here's something newer (2019) about the speaker & his place of employment:
source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05 ... te-science

Note that's Science magazine, a publication of AAAS. First, here's something about the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
The world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its Science family of journals, AAAS has individual members in more than 91 countries around the globe. Membership is open to anyone who shares our goals and belief that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics can help solve many of the challenges the world faces today.
...
The formation of AAAS in 1848 marked the emergence of a national scientific community in the United States. While science was part of the American scene from the nation's early days, its practitioners remained few in number and scattered geographically and among disciplines. AAAS was the first permanent organization formed to promote the development of science and engineering at the national level and to represent the interests of all its disciplines.


OK here's that excerpt from Science mag that I linked above:
U.S. think tank shuts down prominent center that challenged climate science

By Scott Waldman, E&E NewsMay. 29, 2019 , 2:45 PM
Originally published by E&E News

The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming.

The move came after Pat Michaels, a climate scientist who rejects mainstream researchers’ concerns about rising temperatures, left Cato earlier this year amid disagreements with officials in the organization.


Note, if you look for the original (full, longer) EE News piece, you'll find this:
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060419123

which says this:
The Cato Institute quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming.

The move came after Pat Michaels, a climate scientist who rejects mainstream researchers' concerns about rising temperatures, left Cato earlier this year amid disagreements with officials in the organization.

"They informed me that they didn't think their vision of a think tank was in the science business, and so I said, 'OK, bye,'" Michaels said in an interview yesterday. "There had been some controversy going around the building for some time, so things got to a situation where they didn't work out."

A spokeswoman said Cato's shuttering of the Center for the Study of Science does not represent a shift in the institute's position on human-caused climate change. But the think tank moved decisively to close down the science wing that was overseen by Michaels. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist and former adjunct scholar, also left the center.

"While it is true that, with the departure of Pat Michaels, we have deactivated our Center for the Study of Science, we continue to work on science policy issues," Khristine Brookes, the spokeswoman, wrote in an email. She didn't mention climate change.

Michaels is among a small number of academics with legitimate climate science credentials who downplay the human contribution to rising temperatures. He is a frequent guest on Fox News and other conservative outlets, and he has spent years attacking efforts to address climate change. He was influential in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, and he helped turn the GOP away from climate policy at a time when conservatives were embracing it (Climatewire, Dec. 5, 2018). That shift has endured.

Cato also is no longer affiliated with Richard Lindzen, an emeritus professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has long been critical of established climate science. Lindzen was a distinguished fellow at the think tank. It's unclear when he left Cato, and Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues.

Maue, who worked with Michaels, said other think tanks cultivated closer relationships with the Trump White House.

"In terms of climate change and regulation, Cato was not a big player at all in the Trump administration," he said.

Michaels was not asked to take part in the White House plan for an "adversarial" review of climate science related to the National Climate Assessment. Michaels has been critical of government climate reports for decades and has published research in major scientific journals. Both of those are seen as attributes by recruiters in charge of finding experts for the White House panel.

Michaels has spent years attacking climate modeling, which he claims ran hot, despite evidence from NASA that contradicted his claims and demonstrated that models were largely accurate. He has also portrayed academic researchers in climate-related fields as beholden to funding that incentivizes them to produce alarming research. The Cato Institute has received millions of dollars from the Koch network, the Mercer Family Foundation, Exxon Mobil Corp. and other foundations that oppose regulations.

Maue said the Niskanen Center, which was founded by Cato alumnus Jerry Taylor, has attracted conservative followers with its middle-of-the-road climate policy. That's appealing to businesses that help fund think tanks and to those that might support policy positions on climate in the post-Trump era, he said.

"That's attractive to business and politicians who don't really want to see the climate flame wars continuing on," Maue said in an interview. "I think many businesses have taken an approach to what's going to happen and, assuming Trump isn't around in 2021, what's coming down the pike."

Still, Maue said that one of Michaels' lasting contributions in the climate policy debate was to create a position where one can accept that humans are affecting the climate but not as much as the vast majority of scientists claim. It's now a de facto position for many Republican lawmakers who acknowledge that humans are contributing to climate change but don't want to restrict fossil fuel use.

"Where Pat's influence is is in the term 'lukewarming,'" Maue said. "Lukewarming is not climate denial; it's just that he's taking, and most of us on this side of the issue believe in lower climate sensitivity. We don't believe there's going to be 5 degrees of warming; we figure it's at the lower end of 1.5 degrees."

The vast majority of climate scientists believe that the world could warm 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels within the next two decades and accelerate through the end of the century, with some estimates placing warming above 5 C.


You note Dr Lintzen's affiliation with the prestigious National Academy of Science. NAS actually has - and serves up to the public - quite a collection of materials on climate change science:
https://www.nap.edu/collection/34/climate-change

and here's a little cover blurb, from the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, that you'll see when you go to that site's collection of downloadable publications:
Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. Human activities largely determine the evolution of the Earth's climate, which not only impact the next few decades, but the coming centuries and millennia. This collection emphasizes the importance of 21st century choices regarding long-term climate stabilization through improving understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change.



And here's a blurb from the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, talking about their reports and publications such as those you can find at the page with the cover blurb and the collection of climate change materials linked above:
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine reports are viewed as being valuable and credible because of the institution's reputation for providing independent, objective, and nonpartisan advice with high standards of scientific and technical quality. Checks and balances are applied at every step in the study process to protect the integrity of the reports and to maintain public confidence in them.

I just can't see any little ol' chickenshit, any standard-issue horseshit, or any colossal humongous whaleshit silencing the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences.


Pues...
culero - vete a la chingada
:shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

It looks like Ernie and Mr Hoyer keep googling contrarian scientists and when their folly and/ or $ ties (and lies) are escavated, instead of addressing the points delivered, they *Ignore* (the most blatantly bad of msg board moves) and go dig up another one, but they are always kooky or shifty. Ernie likes to pretend also, that he is extravagantly familiar with the speaker/scientist/statements he produces hence the lapses.

Luckily the toy toolbox will run out but its super obvious and Im just an odd old reptile keeper.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

****************************************************************************
Pᵢ = σ² for all i , Jimi
Thank you Jimi, and your opinion is always welcome.

Now I'll resume allowing the scientist themselves to tell their story, This a far preferable option, as opposed to addressing the tedious bushwa rantings and miscellaneous fodder plucked from the interwebs, point by point.

Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, PhD, Harvard University............ membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the list goes on. Without a doubt an eminent scientist in the field.

Please, Professor. If you would, Thank you.


Exxon, which has given the group George C. Marshall Institute $840,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998

(CFACT) which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 ExxonSecrets.org database
All the finances are public record. No one is hiding anything. I'm not sure how reliable sourcing data from something called ExxonSecrets.org database is, but let's take a quick look,

Using a St.-Fin. period of 16 yrs, The time frame set by ExxonSecrets.org .

Dr. Roy Spencer's group the George C. Marshall Institute, Arlington, Va received approx. $52,500 per yr.

(CFACT) equates to approx. $36,250 per yr.

From a company that spends a billion dollars annually on scientific research no less. The number only amounts to a very small annual donation. Hardly a smoking gun.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
BillMcGighan
Posts: 2355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:23 am
Location: Unicoi, TN

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by BillMcGighan »

$$$$$$$$

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[1] He is funded by fossil fuel interests, such as Peabody Coal.[2]

Lindzen is perhaps best known for his "Iris hypothesis", which proposed that, like the iris of an eye, the earth's cloud systems will act to lessen global warming. Other climate researchers believe that further research has not supported this hypothesis;[3]

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

Scientist are sometimes hired by large corporation's as consultants, this is not the same thing as having research funded. Far from it. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen did not lie. The Newsweek journalist twisted the facts and made a false accusation blurring the publics perception.

A popular smear attack is to discredit scientist that question doomsday climate change scenarios, incorrectly attacking funding sources / Improper context. I.E. biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007. No financial figure or time frame given, questionable journalism. As clearly demonstrated, The Greenpeace.org. numbers proved to be very deceptive, no one was being backed.

E.G. someone sees an intuition received X amount of funding from say, Shell Oil Company. Not knowing how the actual figures break down or anything about the actual position , They jump straight to the typical rhetoric that the scientists are working (doing dubious things) for the oil company, This solely because, they see a funding source they don't approve of and now they KNOW !

In many, if not most, cases this is wrong think. It's a textbook example of the merger between lack of knowledge and reasoning. Essentiality puts the cart before the horse.


Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

WSTREPS wrote:
June 3rd, 2020, 5:12 am
Scientist are sometimes hired by large corporation's as consultants, this is not the same thing as having research funded. Far from it. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen did not lie. The Newsweek journalist twisted the facts and made a false accusation blurring the publics perception.

A popular smear attack used to discredit scientist that question doomsday climate change scenarios. Is to incorrectly attack funding sources. Improper context. I.E. biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007. No financial figure or time frame given, questionable journalism. As clearly demonstrated, The Greenpeace.org. numbers proved to be very deceptive, no one was being backed.

E.G. someone sees an intuition received X amount of funding from say, Shell Oil Company. Not knowing how the actual figures break down or anything about the actual position , They jump straight to the typical rhetoric that the scientists are working (doing dubious things) for the oil company, This solely because, they see a funding source they don't approve of and now they KNOW !

In many, if not most, cases this is wrong think. It's a textbook example of the merger between lack of knowledge and reasoning. Essentiality puts the cart before the horse.


Ernie Eison
check your post. The typos make you look loaded.

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

allowing the scientist themselves to tell their story, (is) a far preferable option,
Indeed. Here's twenty two of his MIT colleagues - well, they were his colleagues there before he retired, saying something. Source: http://climate-science.mit.edu/wp-conte ... Trump1.png

Seems pretty clear to me.

Image

Jimi
Posts: 1931
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi »

(Ernie, at this point in a beat down, it's customary to stay down. We've all made our points, anything more would just be embarrassing. Let's stick a fork in this one.)

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS »

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\........................jimi
Thank you Jimi, and your opinion is always welcome.

500 Global Climate Scientists Challenge Mob Hysteria

https://www.newsmax.com/larrybell/clima ... id/937026/

Ernie Eison


D'tUknowUrAnidiot....

Hello everyone. I would like to take a moment and tell all of you about a growing problem.

Many unfortunate people are born without a brain. But there is hope. Won't you please help me to help them.

To learn more and help, watch the posted video and please support ; get a brain.org
Thank you and God bless you all.. Ernie Eison

No One With a Brain Takes Climate Alarmists Seriously - and Here's Why



Smart, concise, and correct.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

I couldnt even make it to the end, of the above shrill, amateurish skit.

One of the poorest "Yeah? Well Youre A DumB Head and a Poopy" that Ernie has ever come up with.

And to think Jimi came to your defense when a mugshot of you in jail scrubs was posted, and others were so embarrassed for you being outed for animal cruelty charges that they pretended to believe your story, and tried even to compare some of their past slights with law enforcement.

However, a foible of a 22 year old (all the examples were in early 20s as I remember) isnt the same as a felony charge at 55 years old.


You didn't post for a while after that. But eventually came back, as graceless as ever.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

I have spent more time reviewing links that pertain to the issue of Climate Change. So I am entering a number of posts that possibly can add insight.

After reviewing this added information along with the link provided by EE, if any individual viewing this thread still believes that the science has already been settled and there is no other valid side to the issue of climate change, then I hope you have a pleasant day.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1
A cause and effect relationship between an increase in atmospheric CO-2 resulting in increase in global temperatures has been an accepted scenario. But then some scientists have indicated that it has been an increase in ocean temperatures that has causes an increase in atmospheric CO-2. Of course, such comments have been met with scorn, ridicule, etc. They are being funding by the fossil fuel lobby, etc., etc.

In doing more web searching and in reviewing some of John Cook’s ‘Skeptical Science’ web pages, I came across an interesting graph. To me, it looked as if the graph showed CO-2 concentrations lagging behind ocean temperatures in both directions. The next day, I searched Skeptical Science again and found, “CO-2 lags temperature – what dose it mean? “ Skeptical Science, updated July, 2015

To his credit, John Cook acknowledges the above reality, that a rise in ocean temperature then produces a time lag in which there occurs is an increase in CO-2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Cook then provides his explanation. So in keeping with my own advice about viewing both sides, I made additional web searches to see what other professionals had to say. Below I have copied two titles that can be entered in a web search that provide some contrast to John Cook’s points of view on the issue of CO-2 and global warming.

Dr. Timothy Ball 9/9/18 Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before ...
NIPCC May 22, 2019 Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Climate

I suggests reading Dr. Ball’s entire critique even though like myself, most readers will not be able to grasp some of the more technical aspects.

The NIPCC document is a very comprehensive professional undertaking. After accessing the web site, go to the right side column and click on ‘2. Climate Science’ Next, scroll down to page 135, ‘2.1.2.3 Geological Record’. I read to the end on page 139 which contains the same or similar graph as contained in John Cook’s Skeptical Science. It is in this manner that one can compare the two different sides.

I then skipped down to page 148 and ‘2.2 Controversies’ and read down to the bottom of page 152. I then skipped down to page 174, ‘2.2.4 Solar Activity’ which as mentioned, is the fourth area of climate science in which there is disagreement. Much of the coverage is far too technical but the general gist can be understood.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Im sorry Sir, but your intrapersonal leanings, past accommodations of animal cruelty (Pit Traps and other empathically estranged input about Living Animals) and butt-hurt familial associations with your own perhaps costly illegalities (your sons snake collection deaths in government care) do not make you a credible advocate.


Im sorry, it just the way it is. Lovey dovey sisters You & Ernie ... but nobody else, please Sir, Get A Clue.

There are other ways to bond with your bunkered son.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

To return prior Ernies request to his only ally, Richard Hoyer per PM for diffusion of the re-emergence of the animal abuse mugshot and support....
Kelly Mc wrote:
June 5th, 2020, 9:09 am
I couldnt even make it to the end, of the above shrill, amateurish skit.

One of the poorest "Yeah? Well Youre A DumB Head and a Poopy" that Ernie has ever come up with.

And to think Jimi came to your defense when a mugshot of you in jail scrubs was posted, and others were so embarrassed for you being outed for animal cruelty charges that they pretended to believe your story, and tried even to compare some of their past slights with law enforcement.

However, a foible of a 22 year old (all the examples were in early 20s as I remember) isnt the same as a felony charge at 55 years old.


You didn't post for a while after that. But eventually came back, as graceless as ever.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Spooky, isnt it?

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

I have spent more time reviewing links that pertain to the issue of Climate Change. So I am entering a number of posts that possibly can add insight.

After reviewing this added information along with the link provided by EE, if any individual viewing this thread still believes that the science has already been settled and there is no other valid side to the issue of climate change, then I hope you have a pleasant day.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1
A cause and effect relationship between an increase in atmospheric CO-2 resulting in increase in global temperatures has been an accepted scenario. But then some scientists have indicated that it has been an increase in ocean temperatures that has causes an increase in atmospheric CO-2. Of course, such comments have been met with scorn, ridicule, etc. They are being funding by the fossil fuel lobby, etc., etc.

In doing more web searching and in reviewing some of John Cook’s ‘Skeptical Science’ web pages, I came across an interesting graph. To me, it looked as if the graph showed CO-2 concentrations lagging behind ocean temperatures in both directions. The next day, I searched Skeptical Science again and found, “CO-2 lags temperature – what dose it mean? “ Skeptical Science, updated July, 2015

To his credit, John Cook acknowledges the above reality, that a rise in ocean temperature then produces a time lag in which there occurs is an increase in CO-2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Cook then provides his explanation. So in keeping with my own advice about viewing both sides, I made additional web searches to see what other professionals had to say. Below I have copied two titles that can be entered in a web search that provide some contrast to John Cook’s points of view on the issue of CO-2 and global warming.

Dr. Timothy Ball 9/9/18 Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before ...
NIPCC May 22, 2019 Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Climate

I suggests reading Dr. Ball’s entire critique even though like myself, most readers will not be able to grasp some of the more technical aspects.

The NIPCC document is a very comprehensive professional undertaking. After accessing the web site, go to the right side column and click on ‘2. Climate Science’ Next, scroll down to page 135, ‘2.1.2.3 Geological Record’. I read to the end on page 139 which contains the same or similar graph as contained in John Cook’s Skeptical Science. It is in this manner that one can compare the two different sides.

I then skipped down to page 148 and ‘2.2 Controversies’ and read down to the bottom of page 152. I then skipped down to page 174, ‘2.2.4 Solar Activity’ which as mentioned, is the fourth area of climate science in which there is disagreement. Much of the coverage is far too technical but the general gist can be understood.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Sir, this is an unfortunate trajectory, but its your choice.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

#3
There are many reputable scientists on both sides of this issue. One group belong to the U.N. IPCC and others belonging to the NIPCC organization or somewhat similar organizations. It therefore is important to view the positions put forth by individuals on both sides.

Then there are a number of scientists that have resigned from the IPCC organization. Viewing the reasons they resigned is important. I searched the web for scientists that may have resigned from the NIPCC organization but was not able to find such information. Should there be such individuals, viewing their reasons for resignation would be equally important.

The following are individuals that once belonged to he IPCC. On 3/28/19 I posted a similar version but believe it is worth repeating. If what these scientists say does not give you pause about the U.N. IPCC organization, so be it.

Richard F. Hoyer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher Landsea
Landsea has worked on hurricanes for over 20 years and has over publications in the field. He took part in the second and third IPCC reports. He resigned from the IPCC in January 2005 over the issue of exaggerated claims of the influence of global warming on hurricanes, discussed previously. In his resignation letter, he stated "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns." He added "All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin....It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming." and concluded: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Paul Reiter
Reiter is an expert in tropical diseases such as malaria. He was a contributing author to the WGII report of the TAR (2001) (chapter 9, dealing with impacts on human health). He found it impossible to work with lead authors who were not experts in the field, who were insisting on a link between climate change and diseases such as malaria, so he resigned from the IPCC process. He was interviewed for the Channel 4 programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle. He gave evidence to a US Senate Committee, launching a scathing attack on the IPCC: A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of “experts.” I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. In a report to the House of Lords he wrote: "In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities."

Richard Lindzen
Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, has over 200 publications in meteorology and climate. He was a lead author on Chapter 7 of the IPCC TAR, published in 2001. Subsequently, in May 2001, he was critical of the Summary for Policymakers, which he said "misrepresents what scientists say" and "Exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty". He also said that the IPCC encourages misuse of the Summary, and that the Summary does not reflect the full document, and that the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming (all of these comments refer to the 2001 TAR, but as we have seen on these pages, are equally applicable to the 2007 AR4). Lindzen played no part in the writing of AR4.

John T Everett
Everett is an expert in fisheries and the oceans. He worked for the IPCC until 2000. In a statement to the US House of Representatives in 2007 he called for "a reality check" and said that "Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing". He has written a web site climatechangefacts.info that is highly critical of the IPCC.

Tom Segalstad
Segalstad is a geologist and former IPCC expert reviewer. He also has a web site highly critical of the IPCC and climate alarmism.


Hans von Storch
Hans von Storch was a lead author in the Third Assessment Report (2001). In 2004 he published a paper that was critical of the "hockey stick" picture that was prominent in the TAR. He volunteered to act as a lead author in AR4, but was not chosen. He has been quite outspoken in his criticism of the IPCC: "IPCC authors have decided to violate the mission of the IPCC, by presenting disinformation". See discussion here.


Roger Pielke sr.
Roger Pielke is an atmospheric scientist with over 300 publications. He was invited to write as a coauthor for the second IPCC report (1995), but his comments were ignored, so he resigned from "this clearly biased assessment process" and was not invited to take part in the 3rd or 4th reports. See his resignation letter. See also his comments for the IAC Review.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Refresh..
Kelly Mc wrote:
June 5th, 2020, 9:09 am
I couldnt even make it to the end, of the above shrill, amateurish skit.

One of the poorest "Yeah? Well Youre A DumB Head and a Poopy" that Ernie has ever come up with.

And to think Jimi came to your defense when a mugshot of you in jail scrubs was posted, and others were so embarrassed for you being outed for animal cruelty charges that they pretended to believe your story, and tried even to compare some of their past slights with law enforcement.

However, a foible of a 22 year old (all the examples were in early 20s as I remember) isnt the same as a felony charge at 55 years old.


You didn't post for a while after that. But eventually came back, as graceless as ever.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

#5
A major pillar the IPCC reports relied on the ‘hockey stick graph’ published by Dr. Michael Mann in 2009. A number of scientists questioned the validity of Mann’s graph and Mann sued one of the critics, Dr. Tim Ball. But then Mann lost his law suit.

Mann lost because he failed to comply with the courts order to produce all methods by which his graph was constructed. Revealing (publishing) methods is a vital part of all scientific research. By not producing his method, Michael Mann (and his graph) now lack credibility.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

#6
In a web search of the IPCC organization, I found the following;
“What is the purpose of IPCC?” “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts.”

For individuals that are not involved with conducting research, I can understand why the above IPCC statement could seem reasonable. But form a scientific standpoint, that statement from the IPCC raises at least two ‘red flags’. Can you spot them?

Legitimate investigations starts out with not knowing reality. The pursuit of research then endeavors to reveal reality. Therefore, the IPCC claim of presenting “objective information” is bogus for two reasons.

First, they openly admit to knowing that climate change is “human-induced”? Credible scientific research does not start with such a bias and agenda as stated by the IPCC. Secondly, the IPCC then most likely cites published research that supports their predetermined position and omits major published climate research that does not support their agenda.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

#6
Recently, I received a solicitation from a group called the ‘Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’ (CFACT) with a cover letter ‘From the Desk of Dr. Patrick Moore’. For those that are not aware, Dr. Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace. You can find his name in the second group of scientists in post #4.

Dr. Moore left the organization in 1986 because Greenpeace had “---evolved into an an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.”
Another passage in the cover letter is as follows: “I recently told a television audience, “The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science.””

Now I can foresee individuals using the same tiresome ploy of indicating that CFACT is funded by conservatives, the fossil fuel industry, etc. thereby dismissing any point of view that do not support their position. I suggest instead, it would be more construictive to focus on substance.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4418
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc »

Again, its extremely sad that an unbalanced well into-adulthood-son, cowardly uses his elderly father as a sock puppet.

Hes even afraid of me, a one hundred pound snake keeper lesbian.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 609
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

My computer seems to still be experiencing problems as my entries #2 and #4 did not get posted. And the last post should have been #7 and not a second #6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2 Scientific endeavors are not popularity contests. Nor is scientific research a democratic process whereby voting counts and the majority wins. Citing ‘consensus’ as if it were a valid means for confirming and evaluating scientific results is itself unscientific.

Citing ‘consensus’ as if such were meaningful indicates individuals that have not done their homework by reviewing the history of science and the times in which the consensus of scientists have been wrong.

Copied from a link: “Consensus has no value in a scientific argument; only experimental evidence matters.”

Richard F. Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4
A major pillar the IPCC reports relied on the ‘hockey stick graph’ published by Dr. Michael Mann in 2009. A number of scientists questioned the validity of Mann’s graph and Mann sued one of the critics, Dr. Tim Ball. But then Mann lost his law suit.

Mann lost because he failed to comply with the courts order to produce all methods by which his graph was constructed. Revealing (publishing) methods is a vital part of all scientific research. By not producing his method, Michael Mann (and his graph) now lack credibility.

Richard F. Hoyer

Post Reply