Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Any leader who does not believe in climate change needs mental confinement

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Bowerbird, Aug 31, 2018.

Page 6 of 8
  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The debate isn't over what caused the LIA. It is over the relative proportion of the factors known to have contributed to the LIA. Why do you think you're having a hard to finding a scientific consensus for the cause that does not include a solar grand minimum and volcanic activity?
     
    iamanonman, Sep 16, 2018
    #126
    Bowerbird likes this.
  2. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Any time you want to verify that number just read through the reference lists on the IPCC
     
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #127
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    From one site on the planet..........

    DO NOT CONFUSE POOR JOURNALISM WITH GOOD SCIENCE
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #128
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Iceagenow

    A blog

    Poorly referenced

    Basically just an opinion piece by the author who is........
    May I suggest google scholar?
     
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #129
  5. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Time magazine had a cover in the 70s talking about the next ice age, some of these so called scientist we're the same ones that talked about it, now it is climate change. Don't blame journalists for quoting these so called scientist...putting everything in caps just makes you look emotional and ignorant. So to quote Jack, "You can't handle the truth."
     
    jmblt2000, Sep 17, 2018
    #130
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I say global warming is a hoax I obviously mean man made global warming as does Trump but obviously you know that and have sadly resorted to trolling. For some reason I expected better from you.
     
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #131
    Hotdogr likes this.
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would trend to agree that scientist have looked at everything going on (that they currently know about) during the LIA and said some or all of those things must have or may have caused it. That's not exactly rocket science and even take a ditzy blonde tv weather girl could figure it out to that extent. Your point is?
     
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #132
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tens of thousands? LMAO you just made the number up. Admit it and move on.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #133
  9. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don't admit some glaciers have been growing? You really want to have this debate? Even in your part of the world it's happening.

    https://phys.org/news/2017-02-zealand-unusual-glaciers.html
     
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #134
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ummmm

    Did you read it?

    Somehow I don't think it says what you think it says
     
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #135
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It says new Zealand glaciers are growing. Then it attempts to qualify that fact to save face for the AGW crowd but fact is the glaciers are growing.
     
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #136
  12. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can download the first order citations here.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/AR5/report/citations/
     
    iamanonman, Sep 17, 2018
    #137
  13. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #138
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #139
    iamanonman likes this.
  15. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    31,168
    Likes Received:
    28,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wouldn't look at it that way. When folks challenge Anthropogenic global warming, they aren't challenging the observation that temps have increased, they are challenging the ability of science to actually apply a real number to the contribution of man. Folks in AGW cult say, 100% of the warming post end of the little ice age... You've said as much. Obviously, not accurate, or even remotely credible. And yet, folks, again like you, all intone the orthodoxy. It begs the question, why?

    More, it begs the question, why do you then label folks "deniers"? It isn't like they deny that natural warming is happening? I suppose though that folks who find themselves unable to understand that AGW itself, as a theology, demands their participants to deny the forces of nature. I recall that you, for one, have said (recently I will add) that right now, just this second, we are in the goldilocks zone for temps. And, we have to do everything we can to stop nature from modifying what we experience today. So who is the denier? Certainly not me. But perhaps you can find a mirror....
     
    drluggit, Sep 17, 2018
    #140
    Hotdogr and Josephwalker like this.
  16. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting thank you and I can see why you made the claim and I retract my statement you made the number up. Now do all those people say that man is warming the planet to a point where we must take immediate action or we face great peril or are most of these names just associated with studies on various aspects of the hypothesis or of a warming planet in general?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #141
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And then it says how unusual that is and explains why that LOCAL phenomena is still a sign of climate change
     
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #142
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Refer to The Myth of the Global Cooling Scientific Consensus for more information on the topic. The 1974 Time Magazine article is specifically mentioned. I'm curious...did you read the Time Magazine article? I'm just wondering because the damnedest thing is...well...they were only able to find one scientist who thought an ice age was a near future inevitability...just one. His name is Reid Bryson. The same Reid Bryson who the National Geographic and other media outlets decided to throw their lot in with. The same Reid Bryson who testified before congress acknowledging that CO2 was indeed a greenhouse gas that causes a warming force. He just thought, ironically I might add, that anthroprogenic pollution would overwhelm CO2's warming force and actually cause cooling instead. He called his theory the "human volcano". In later years when it was obvious that the Earth was warming he decided that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas afterall and that the Earth was warming due to some mysterious unidentified force. His peers overwhelmingly rejected his "human volcano" theory from the get-go. Why did Time Magazine use pronouns like "scientists" to refer to a single person who was overwhelmingly shunned by his peers? Who knows? Like Bowerbird said, it's really bad journalism.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    iamanonman, Sep 17, 2018
    #143
  19. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly as I stated. They admit glaciers are growing and then look for ways to excuse it as an unimportant anomaly that doesn't threaten their AGW God. Fact is glaciers are growing around the world and the so called experts really don't know why.

    "Calving Glaciers are Unresponsive to Climate. Hubbard Glacier is defying the global paradigm of valley or mountain glacier shrinkage and retreat in response to global climate warming. Hubbard Glacier is the largest of eight calving glaciers in Alaska that are currently increasing in total mass and advancing.
    FS-001-03--Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #144
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look harder. There are about 10,000 citations. There are so many that you have to download the lists separately. And those are just first order citations. Each citation itself has citations that need to be cross referenced.
     
    iamanonman, Sep 17, 2018
    #145
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See post #141
     
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #146
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,131
    Likes Received:
    74,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You seem intelligent enough to understand the reports. They are not super complicated, well some bits are but for the most part they are pretty readable. If you really want to "understand the enemy" these represent the ultimate authority.

    If you don't want to wade through the first three papers read the synthesis report. I am sure there are people on this board who would be more than happy to help you wrap your mind around the science.

    Bottom line

    Don't believe what the shock jocks tell you the scientists are saying. They have to hype everything
    http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/
     
    Bowerbird, Sep 17, 2018
    #147
  23. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To imply that everyone cited that ever wrote anything on our changing climate is a full fledged believer in the hypothesis that man is the primary driver for current climate change and man must make immediate changes or we are at great peril is dishonest and or delusion.
     
    Josephwalker, Sep 17, 2018
    #148
  24. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    31,168
    Likes Received:
    28,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nah, it just means you'll parse it as you will. The language is clear enough, the use of the phrase "inspite of" should indicate that their belief in the orthodoxy is stronger than the actual observation, and they have no other explanation for it scientifically. In the absence of their ability to explain, they assume that they are still right in their belief which then reduces the significance of this "anomaly" which is why they refer to it in that way.
     
    drluggit, Sep 17, 2018
    #149
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump was challenging the very idea that the Earth was warming. That's what he was calling a hoax. He said the hoax was perpetrated by the Chinese to harm the United States economically. And it's not just one isolated statement. Just this year Trump said polar sea ice was at "record levels" with the implication that it was a record high he was speaking of (the context was obvious). The irony was that they were indeed at "record levels" when he made that statement. It's just that it was in the complete opposite direction....they were at record lows!

    It's shorthand for saying "someone who denies or rejects science". If you accept that natural made GHG and aerosol molecules can influence climate but reject that those same molecules produced by mad man can't then you are saying the laws of physics are different for nature than they are for man. That goes against every law of science. If you think man made GHG and aerosol molecules have some magic physics defying property then you are denying science.

    Also, I don't think we are in a goldilocks zone for temperature. That implies that I think there is an ideal absolute temperature T. I don't think that. What I think is that the best situation for humans is an environment where the change in temperature ΔT is zero because that gives us maximum opportunity to optimize our civilization without trying to hit a moving target. In other words, the T is mostly irrelevant has long as ΔT is close to 0. Slow change is fine. It's fast change that is a problem.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    iamanonman, Sep 17, 2018
    #150
Page 6 of 8

Share This Page