Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[basilio]

Ok so you are disparaging Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
Well done old boy. Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.

 

[wayneL]

Ok so you are disparaging Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
Well done old boy. Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.

So basilio defends the gross hypocrisy of the lifestyle of these self righteous clowns by going ad hom on anyone who points it out?

Just wow, wow, wow.

No matter what anyone thinks about cc, Laher is indisputably spot on, and you "sir", are way off track.

 

[cynic]

Ok so you are disparaging Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
Well done old boy. Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.

That media article, linked by Tisme, seemed to be saying more about the hypocrisy of certain entertainers, than anything else.
To me it seemed to speak strongly about the blatant hypocrisy of Carbon Crusaders. Those modern day "heroes" whom are so eager to "talk the talk" and yet most reluctant to actually "walk the walk".
They should stick to working their talents, as entertainers, and stay the FTSE out of politics.

By the way, the habitual adjusting of data, in order to support AGW theory, does make it look increasingly like it may be one almighty hoax.

 

[basilio]

Wow, Wow Wow!!

I didn't realise that Fox News understood and accepted the reality of human caused global warming. I thought they just mindlessly denied every piece of scientific and physical evidence that pointed to these facts. And, to top it off they trashed scientists and public figures who expressed their concern.

So of course their ASF followers march in lock step don't they Wayne ?
______________________________________________________________________
But enough of the dribble that passes for news from Fox. Lets get factual. Did you know there are fully 38 scientific papers published over the past 10 years that denied Global Anthropegenic Climate Change.

That's BIG isn't it ? Really and truly .. Perhaps one could build an entire industry on this body of work to demonstate that the rest of the climate science field are frauds or wrong .

But then what happens when these 38 papers are assessed for their replicability ?

IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Hard to deny. (Reuters/Stringer)
Share
Written by
Katherine Ellen Foley
Obsession
Life as Laboratory
September 05, 2017

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

 

[cynic]

Wow, Wow Wow!!

I didn't realise that Fox News understood and accepted the reality of human caused global warming. I thought they just mindlessly denied every piece of scientific and physical evidence that pointed to these facts. And, to top it off they trashed scientists and public figures who expressed their concern.

So of course their ASF followers march in lock step don't they Wayne ?

...

I don't automatically believe everything I encounter via news media either! Sometimes I will see a piece that I wholeheartedly agree with. That journalist just happened to be quite correct in her assessment of the hypocritical behaviour of those entertainers. Other than snide references to entertainers as 'scientists' the content didn't seem to have much (if anything) to do with the questions surrounding beliefs (or lack thereof) in AGW, ACC or any other Apocalyptic religion.
It did seem to be largely focussed upon recognising hypocrisy for what it is!!

 

[cynic]

...Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.
...

Too true!
Now explain to me again why you keep placing so much emphasis on that (somewhat mythical) scientific consensus?

 

[basilio]

Too true!
Now explain to me again why you keep placing so much emphasis on that (somewhat mythical) scientific consensus?

You clearly didn't appreciate the point that the 38 published papers which denied human caused climate change turn out to be error ridden. The other 10,000 papers can stand on their own merit .

Besides which we are now way past looking at scientific papers to proce globala warmin. The facts are on the ground.

 

[cynic]

You clearly didn't appreciate the point that the 38 published papers which denied human caused climate change turn out to be error ridden. The other 10,000 papers can stand on their own merit .

Besides which we are now way past looking at scientific papers to proce globala warmin. The facts are on the ground.

You clearly misunderstood the point my post was making!

Exactly when, and where, did consensus agreement become "good science"?

 

[wayneL]

....and what facts on what ground?

 

[Tisme]

Ok so you are disparaging Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
Well done old boy. Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.

I just thought the woman was very good at ranting.

I really don't know why you should care about the world's condition, given your determined blancophobia to reverse the good the white people gave you = morality compass, technology, industry, freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, tartan kilts, etc. Instead you favour of descent for mankind into a moral abyss that will see it's eventual devolution into a Sodom and Gomorrah of decay and misery anyway; dragging decent, biologically and intellectually superior white folk down with them. It was just a great opportunity to see how far modern man with his green eyes, pale skin and supadupa brain could have gone, instead of gone begging to placating the weak.

I really don't understand why you hate whitey.

 

[basilio]

I just thought the woman was very good at ranting.

I really don't know why you should care about the world's condition, given your determined blancophobia to reverse the good the white people gave you = morality compass, technology, industry, freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, tartan kilts, etc. Instead you favour of descent for mankind into a moral abyss that will see it's eventual devolution into a Sodom and Gomorrah of decay and misery anyway; dragging decent, biologically and intellectually superior white folk down with them. It was just a great opportunity to see how far modern man with his green eyes, pale skin and supadupa brain could have gone, instead of gone begging to placating the weak.

I really don't understand why you hate whitey.

Seriously ? Are you conscious ? Are you totally awake or perhaps in a fugue state ? Do you have any idea what you are saying, just winging it or attempting some esoteric wind up that only you and your special friends are privvy to ?

Wake up Tizzie. Your trashing this forum.

 

[Tisme]

Seriously ? Are you conscious ? Are you totally awake or perhaps in a fugue state ? Do you have any idea what you are saying, just winging it or attempting some esoteric wind up that only you and your special friends are privvy to ?

Wake up Tizzie. Your trashing this forum.

Well I reckon I have one "special friend" here who doesn't seem to think so and I reckon I could scrape up another like minded bedfellow if I paid him in whisky and blue pills.

It's coz I'm propper white isn't it .....

 

[luutzu]

You clearly didn't appreciate the point that the 38 published papers which denied human caused climate change turn out to be error ridden. The other 10,000 papers can stand on their own merit .

Besides which we are now way past looking at scientific papers to proce globala warmin. The facts are on the ground.

Like that Robin Williams character in Good Morning Vietnam: Weather forecast? You got a window? Yea! Open it!

Ah well, when science and facts don't agree with your belief, find the 3% that kinda agree with you to stand corrected.

 

[luutzu]

....and what facts on what ground?

Maybe you cant see the ground 'cause it's flooded or washed away.

 

[cynic]

Like that Robin Williams character in Good Morning Vietnam: Weather forecast? You got a window? Yea! Open it!

Ah well, when science and facts don't agree with your belief, find the 3% that kinda agree with you to stand corrected.

Errm only 35ish % agreement, according to the (unadjusted) findings of Cook et al, and even those findings were somewhat doubtful given the liberality of his assessment criteria (i.e. his criteria did not require endorsement of a catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in his bogus consensus findings). The poor correlation between the, somewhat limited, responses received to self assessment requests, also highlighted serious issues with the performance of that particular study.

But let's not let the mathematical facts get in the way of yet another apocalyptic religion.

 

[luutzu]

Errm only 35ish % agreement, according to the (unadjusted) findings of Cook et al, and even those findings were somewhat doubtful given the liberality of his assessment criteria (i.e. his criteria did not require endorsement of a catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in his bogus consensus findings). The poor correlation between the, somewhat limited, responses received to self assessment requests, also highlighted serious issues with the performance of that particular study.

But let's not let the mathematical facts get in the way of yet another apocalyptic religion.

There's an island in the Caribbean that just had 95% of its dwellings wiped out in a single hurricane. Texas got up to 7 feet in flood water from Harvey? Maybe that was Florida with Irma.

Then there's the death from exposure to what the storm drags in; deaths from power cuts to nursing homes; lack of food, water, money.

To some, these hundred-year, thousand-year events happening more frequently might be apocalyptic to them.

I guess people shouldn't live where people had managed to live for hundreds if not thousands of years.

But sure, let's not be too hasty. It's not like being wrong and distrusting scientists on this would kill anyone (that mattered)

 

[cynic]

There's an island in the Caribbean that just had 95% of its dwellings wiped out in a single hurricane. Texas got up to 7 feet in flood water from Harvey? Maybe that was Florida with Irma.

Then there's the death from exposure to what the storm drags in; deaths from power cuts to nursing homes; lack of food, water, money.

To some, these hundred-year, thousand-year events happening more frequently might be apocalyptic to them.

I guess people shouldn't live where people had managed to live for hundreds if not thousands of years.

But sure, let's not be too hasty. It's not like being wrong and distrusting scientists on this would kill anyone (that mattered)

Catastrophic to those directly impacted, certainly. But that is not the point being challenged.

None of these natural weather events are without historical precedent.

The reason for increased reporting and/or affectation of larger human populations, could be quite easily attributable to the greatly increased human populace compared to yesteryear, yestercentury, yestermillenium, yesterage, yesteraeon etc.

How about we start looking at these events scientifically (for a change), rather than eagerly claiming every natural weather event as somehow demonstrating the sanctity of that highly unscientific apocalyptic religion(to which you have evidently subscribed)!

 

[luutzu]

Catastrophic to those directly impacted, certainly. But that is not the point being challenged.

None of these natural weather events are without historical precedent.

The reason for increased reporting and/or affectation of larger human populations, could be quite easily attributable to the greatly increased human populace compared to yesteryear, yestercentury, yestermillenium, yesterage, yesteraeon etc.

How about we start looking at these events scientifically (for a change), rather than eagerly claiming every natural weather event as somehow demonstrating the sanctity of that highly unscientific apocalyptic religion(to which you have evidently subscribed)!

Harvey was the largest "water event" in US history.

Irma was the largest hurricane to come out of the Atlantic.

So they are without historical precedent.

During these two, there was another smaller one in Mexico... but who cares about the Mexicans; there was also massive bush fires in California... now in Oregon and another state.

There's massive "water event" in Bangladesh; just a couple of days ago typhoons hit Taiwan and another in the Phillipines heading towards central VN.

No one is saying that hurricane or typhoons or flooding never happen. Just these weather events are on the scales of one in a hundred year, a thousand year event... and they happen in matters of weeks and years.

 

[cynic]

Harvey was the largest "water event" in US history.

Irma was the largest hurricane to come out of the Atlantic.

So they are without historical precedent.

During these two, there was another smaller one in Mexico... but who cares about the Mexicans; there was also massive bush fires in California... now in Oregon and another state.

There's massive "water event" in Bangladesh; just a couple of days ago typhoons hit Taiwan and another in the Phillipines heading towards central VN.

No one is saying that hurricane or typhoons or flooding never happen. Just these weather events are on the scales of one in a hundred year, a thousand year event... and they happen in matters of weeks and years.

Could have fooled me! On an almost daily basis now, I encounter somebody reporting that some event, somewhere in the world, is historically unprecedented, and therefore somehow evidence of AGW or ACC.

As usual, you failed to address my key point, namely the impact that an increased population has on the reporting, experiencing, and assessment of the overall impact of these events.

A weather event, when it hits a more densely populated area, can easily be deemed to be without historical precedent in terms of lives lost and property damage!
That doesn't automatically mean that the event itself is of greater historical magnitude in objective terms, only in terms of lives lost and/or property damaged.

Anyone seriously wanting to know the objective scientific facts , needs to look a lot more deeply into the actual measurements rather than blindly accepting sensationalised media headlines and reports.

 

[luutzu]

Could have fooled me! On an almost daily basis now, I encounter somebody reporting that some event, somewhere in the world, is historically unprecedented, and therefore somehow evidence of AGW or ACC.

As usual, you failed to address my key point, namely the impact that an increased population has on the reporting, experiencing, and assessment of the overall impact of these events.

A weather event, when it hits a more densely populated area, can easily be deemed to be without historical precedent in terms of lives lost and property damage!
That doesn't automatically mean that the event itself is of greater historical magnitude in objective terms, only in terms of lives lost and/or property damaged.

Anyone seriously wanting to know the objective scientific facts , needs to look a lot more deeply into the actual measurements rather than blindly accepting sensationalised media headlines and reports.

Oh! We're getting philosophical with "if a tree fell and no one hears it..."

Pretty sure Harvey and Irma was "biggest" by water volumes and not how many people it affected and whether the drainage weren't cleared etc.