26 Jul 19
@metal-brain saidMorano is right to be skeptical. He is wrong about most of his conclusions. Scientists don't lose funding if they produce data that is reproducible and questions existing paradigms. If you had believable data showing new global climate forcings that didn't previously exist in models, you'd be funded for decades to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuKJSwkCHwE&fbclid=IwAR3YKtw5BGCmnGyE0UyIcGR_dtMzntWfA1GLWG4ne84IvxHxVcqg7dNpjvI
The problem is that hasn't happened yet. Everyone's genuinely trying to figure out what makes our climate tick, and how to keep it in the temperate range for the forseeable future. We figured out how to do things that seemed impossible: visualize individual molecules, fly into outer space, dig up dinosaur bones and burn them for heat and transportation. Now we can do this. Be skeptical but don't be a defeatist.
27 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidGovernment doesn't fund things that are not a problem. Can you imagine someone claiming everything is fine but fund him more so he can verify government is wasting money funding a non problem?
Morano is right to be skeptical. He is wrong about most of his conclusions. Scientists don't lose funding if they produce data that is reproducible and questions existing paradigms. If you had believable data showing new global climate forcings that didn't previously exist in models, you'd be funded for decades to come.
The problem is that hasn't happened yet. Everyone's ...[text shortened]... nd burn them for heat and transportation. Now we can do this. Be skeptical but don't be a defeatist.
How is he to get funding for decades to come for a non problem? Alarmists clearly have a funding advantage.
"Everyone's genuinely trying to figure out what makes our climate tick, and how to keep it in the temperate range for the forseeable future."
No, not everyone. Many people resort to confirmation bias. They are only interested if proving what they already believe. Sonhouse is a perfect example of that. He insisted the claim CO2 lags behind temps in the ice core samples was false all the way up until he insisted on a peer reviewed article. I provided him just that.
Humy is the same way. He insisted hurricanes were more frequent in a warmer climate. So did you. You were both wrong.
You are only interested in confirmation bias. You had your mind made up long ago and cognitive dissonance is preventing you from accepting anything else. You are genuinely dishonest. A defeatist gives up and I never gave up. False claim.
Be open minded, not dogmatic.
27 Jul 19
Government doesn't fund things that are not a problem. Can you imagine someone claiming everything is fine but fund him more so he can verify government is wasting money funding a non problem?
I thought we were in agreement that global warming is happening. If so, then we have a problem.
How is he to get funding for decades to come for a non problem? Alarmists clearly have a funding advantage.
According to Morano, the existing paradigm is wrong. That's a big problem.
They are only interested if proving what they already believe. Sonhouse is a perfect example of that. He insisted the claim CO2 lags behind temps in the ice core samples was false all the way up until he insisted on a peer reviewed article. I provided him just that.
Humy is the same way. He insisted hurricanes were more frequent in a warmer climate. So did you. You were both wrong.
You are only interested in confirmation bias. You had your mind made up long ago and cognitive dissonance is preventing you from accepting anything else. You are genuinely dishonest. A defeatist gives up and I never gave up. False claim.
CO2 lagging behind temp in the pliocene says very little about todays climate. Obviously we've created an artificial system by ratcheting up CO2 concentrations. It can't compare to prior climates. You;ve seen the science that convinces most scientists that climate change is man made. I'm waiting for your evidence that nuclear power is dangerous. I'm waiting for your evidence that polling data from climate scientists is inaccurate. I'm waiting for your evidence that the chemical properties of CO2 are not what we've known them to be for 200 years.
Be open minded, not dogmatic.
What are you open minded about? I have posted very comprehensive data on the accuracy of climate models, the influence of humans on climate (emissions, land use etc.), but each time you focus on a minor discrepancy that the data did not show to validate your precondition that climate models must be wrong if they're not perfect and humans can't have a major impact on climate. Literally, nothing would convince you otherwise. I would be open to convincing data that showed anthropogenic climate change is a myth. All you've posted is unlabeled graphs from unpublished manuscripts. Why do you believe that garbage?
28 Jul 19
@wildgrass said"You;ve seen the science that convinces most scientists that climate change is man made."
@Metal-BrainGovernment doesn't fund things that are not a problem. Can you imagine someone claiming everything is fine but fund him more so he can verify government is wasting money funding a non problem?
I thought we were in agreement that global warming is happening. If so, then we have a problem.
[quote]How is he to get funding for decades to come for ...[text shortened]... All you've posted is unlabeled graphs from unpublished manuscripts. Why do you believe that garbage?
That is another lie! Most climate scientists are not convinced climate change is man made. BTW, the correct term is global warming, not climate change. Why do you even waste time reading anything that uses that term? The term itself is a good indication of propaganda. It isn't like the ice ages have anything to do with it. Why do you keep using that incredibly stupid term?????
"I thought we were in agreement that global warming is happening. If so, then we have a problem."
We are in agreement global warming is happening, not that there is a problem. GW is mostly from natural causes and you have presented nothing to indicate otherwise. You have promoted a lot of myths that had to start out as lies. Somebody had to have made up stuff without any science to back it up because they obviously did.
Why should I believe exposed liars over science? If it was in reverse you know you would not either. Why the double standard?
I posted NASA's own graph for sea level rise. Are you claiming it is garbage? Climate models are garbage. I proved that long ago, but you refuse to accept it much like sonhouse refused to accept CO2 lagged behind temps until he could not deny the peer reviewed standard he himself insisted on and I delivered. I have said it many times before and I will say it again, climate models are a guess. They are nothing more than that. There are too many factors overlooked to possibly be accurate and that is why they are not. The only exception is hindcasting and they are not predictions of the future so they are irrelevant.
Confirmation bias has failed you and it will keep failing you as long as you keep resorting to it. One word of truth is worth more than a thousand lies. I would have to be a fool to accept the mere opinions of liars who deny reality. You had every chance to prove AGW with sea level rise and you have failed. That thread still exists should you choose to make a case there instead of digressing into everything but sea level rise. If you can stick to the subject make your case there. All you do is make false assertions based on leftist gossip. Talk is cheap.
@metal-brain saidIf it's natural then it's not a problem? Malaria would disagree.
"You;ve seen the science that convinces most scientists that climate change is man made."
That is another lie! Most climate scientists are not convinced climate change is man made. BTW, the correct term is global warming, not climate change. Why do you even waste time reading anything that uses that term? The term itself is a good indication of propaganda. It isn't lik ...[text shortened]... ct make your case there. All you do is make false assertions based on leftist gossip. Talk is cheap.
There's no leftist garbage anywhere here. Conservatives are all over this too. I don't understand your point and don't know where you're getting your info from.
https://www.cleanenergyconservatives.com/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/republican-climate-resolution/
30 Jul 19
@humy said"It's a liberal conspiracy!!!!!!!!"
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-uk-broke-temperature.html
"Britain has officially had its hottest day on record."
I knew it was hot because I found it pretty much unbearable for ~20 hours but didn't know until now it was record hot.
30 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidHow are you going to solve a natural problem? Why would anybody suggest trying?
If it's natural then it's not a problem? Malaria would disagree.
There's no leftist garbage anywhere here. Conservatives are all over this too. I don't understand your point and don't know where you're getting your info from.
https://www.cleanenergyconservatives.com/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/republican-climate-resolution/
Liberals and conservatives don't agree because of political influence on opinion. Neither has any idea why they have faith in their political party position. Most have little understanding of the science on both sides.
In short, it is faith on both sides. Political leaning on this issue has nothing to do with science. Both sides are generally ignorant of the science. Even if one side happens to be right more than the other they generally are not aware why.
Why do you think one political party is right and the other is wrong? They are both wrong and right. There is some man made GW, but it isn't the main cause. Isn't that typical of politically charged issues in general?
The truth is somewhere in the middle. That just happens to be my consistent position all along. Why are you fighting it? Is it heresy for alarmists to accept that?
30 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidStop being an idiot. I expect that from humy, but not from you.
"It's a liberal conspiracy!!!!!!!!"
We are in a warming trend, not a cooling trend. Of course there are and will be more record breaking temperatures to come. That is no surprise. Do you expect record cold temps in a warming trend?
Humy is stupid enough to think that proves man made GW. Are you? Please tell me you are smarter than that and that you are above posting irrelevant links like that.
It is liberal irrelevancy! Duh!
31 Jul 19
1 edit
@metal-brain said
How are you going to solve a natural problem? Why would anybody suggest trying?
Liberals and conservatives don't agree because of political influence on opinion. Neither has any idea why they have faith in their political party position. Most have little understanding of the science on both sides.
In short, it is faith on both sides. Political leaning on this issue ...[text shortened]... y consistent position all along. Why are you fighting it? Is it heresy for alarmists to accept that?
How are you going to solve a natural problem? Why would anybody suggest trying?Jonas Salk would probably have an eloquent answer for this. So would any HVAC technician. Humanity is practically defined by events in which we were successful at solving natural problems.
There is some man made GW, but it isn't the main cause. Isn't that typical of politically charged issues in general?
If there's a cause that can be exploited to solve a problem, it doesn't matter if it's a main cause or not. There are a lot of reasons why your home may be too hot/cold. You can solve part of the problem by installing a fan. Maybe air circulation isn't the main cause of the problem, but it still fixes it.
Politicians generally ignore science that doesn't fit their worldview. The current state of affairs suggests active repression of information that doesn't jive with rhetoric. In my opinion that takes it to another level. If you can refute science with better science, go for it, but don't fire a guy just because he discovers something you don't like.
31 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidWhy don't you have an eloquent answer for this? I suggest it is because it doesn't exist. You talk as if we can rig the climate with a thermostat and turn it up and down when needed. Absurd!How are you going to solve a natural problem? Why would anybody suggest trying?Jonas Salk would probably have an eloquent answer for this. So would any HVAC technician. Humanity is practically defined by events in which we were successful at solving natural problems.
[quote]There is some man made GW, but it isn't the main cause. Isn't that typical of polit ...[text shortened]... better science, go for it, but don't fire a guy just because he discovers something you don't like.
I'll post this video to exemplify there is no consensus GW is a problem. Your side needs to stop lying. Fear mongering will backfire if the lying doesn't stop. More climate scientists will be like Judith Curry if not.
It is a religion that ignores science.
31 Jul 19
@metal-brain saidLe's suppose just for the sake of argument, humans are a large contributor to climate change.
Stop being an idiot. I expect that from humy, but not from you.
We are in a warming trend, not a cooling trend. Of course there are and will be more record breaking temperatures to come. That is no surprise. Do you expect record cold temps in a warming trend?
Humy is stupid enough to think that proves man made GW. Are you? Please tell me you are smarter than that and that you are above posting irrelevant links like that.
It is liberal irrelevancy! Duh!
If true, wouldn't it also be true, if we got the political will world wide to do it, we could, perhaps with draconian measures, keep the worse effects of climate change under control?
31 Jul 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidThe noneloquent answer I provided was that we, as a species, have overcome and solved numerous natural problems throughout our history. Polio was a problem and now it's not. We are capable of solving problems, and to suggest that we aren't is defeatist and wrong. Don't let the oil companies control the narrative here.
Why don't you have an eloquent answer for this? I suggest it is because it doesn't exist. You talk as if we can rig the climate with a thermostat and turn it up and down when needed. Absurd!
I'll post this video to exemplify there is no consensus GW is a problem. Your side needs to stop lying. Fear mongering will backfire if the lying doesn't stop. More climate scienti ...[text shortened]... rry if not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3hHi4sylxE
It is a religion that ignores science.
We saw a youtube video in another thread that proved the earth was flat. This exemplifies nothing.
To figure out who is lying, look at the people who are trying to actively suppress climate reports from being released. I'll give you a hint: it's not the leftists, as you suggested.
31 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidIn other words it doesn't matter if man is the cause, a tax is necessary. Be scared anyway.
The noneloquent answer I provided was that we, as a species, have overcome and solved numerous natural problems throughout our history. Polio was a problem and now it's not. We are capable of solving problems, and to suggest that we aren't is defeatist and wrong. Don't let the oil companies control the narrative here.
We saw a youtube video in another thread that [i]prov ...[text shortened]... climate reports from being released. I'll give you a hint: it's not the leftists, as you suggested.
31 Jul 19
@metal-brain saidlol it's funny that you keep bringing this up. You seem to think it's necessary, even though all your evil leftists were in charge for 8 years and didn't even propose it.
In other words it doesn't matter if man is the cause, a tax is necessary. Be scared anyway.
Are you being fooled to hate science by Right wing propaganda?