• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014

PoloMalo43 said:
I don't think I've seen you post here before.

Got bored of ******* your sister huh? I mean if we're going to stereotype....
Click to expand...

Awaiting the ban hammer.
 
JupiterBnG said:
This, in a nutshell, has been my long-standing problem with the idea of global warming/climate change. It's the fact that a ridiculously tiny fragment of time is being examined and totally unwarranted and unsupportable extrapolations are being made from that data. We have no laboratory in which to conduct scientific testing. Sure, there are computerized global climate simulations, but those simulations are biased toward the beliefs of whoever is running the simulation, and in the end, simulations are not the same as physical experiments.
Click to expand...
If you plug the actual data from 100 years ago into their models, you don't come up with today's climate. It's all bullshit.


The other problem I have, and I'm honestly a very environmentally conscious person - I recycle, I try to conserve energy and water, I try to support sustainable foods and other materials - is that, even if it's all true and we're in the first stages of an environmental catastrophe, no one has proposed any realistic and actionable solutions we can implement today. Not a single one. Carbon taxes and carbon caps aren't going to solve the problem. Electric cars won't solve the problem. Wind and solar energy won't solve the problem. Actually, very little short of the disappearance of 95%+ of the world's population is going to have any meaningful impact.
Click to expand...
I recycle even though I am not required to. My rain barrel setup is working quite nicely although I do not mention it on Facebook because it is probably illegal. The govt SAYS they want you to conserve but when it costs them money you find they don't really mean it. I have detailed the episode of the state forcing my bud to shut down his mini hydroelectric generator here before.
 
Confluence said:
Much like the missing dark matter in cosmology, it is ok to understand that there exist problems to which we do not, yet, have the knowledge to answer correctly. That is what scientific discovery is about.

In the case of this energy, it is completely possible that models could properly account for it by adding an unknown variable that simply admits that part of the math/science is simply unkown at this time. This would make the math/predictions more closely agree with what is observed because the unknown variability is what is clearly eluding climate researchers at this time. At some point in the future, probably when math and computing power are at higher levels, humanity may have a solution for this unknown variable (or more likely, a set of variables, probably with some sort of step function that makes discerning them more fundamentally difficult).

So there you go....energy is always conserved; we simply don't know how in this spectrum of science. That lack of understanding is proved by all the incorrect models and demands that scientists NOT CONCLUDE anything because they don't understand the complexity of nature in this regard.

Like all scientific inquiry, we should allocate resources to this understanding via fundamental research up to the point where we understand the relationships so that we can model properly and correctly match observations to predictions --- that would demonstrate an understanding of the complex system. But at this point in our collective evolution, we do not yet have that understanding. To pretend anyone does is complete hogwash; therefore any policy flowing from poor/bad/incorrect science is bound to be inefficient and wrongly directed. This follows logically.
Click to expand...

This requires a slightly complex answer that I don't have time for now, I'll try tomorrow.What I can say now is that the attempt at comparing AGW to dark matter is ludicrous.

Since I have dealt out *** beating after *** beating on this subject I'll allow you the illusion of a temporary victory, oh and I'll let Shatner voice my pretend frustration as well.

Connnnnnnnnnnn!....Connnnnnnnnnnnn!.....Connnnnnnn nnnn!

 
EdReed4Prez said:
The sad part is no one will be held accountable for this nonsense. When the consensus switches to "whoops, no AGW" the response will be "but all this green energy we crammed down your throat to make our buddies hundreds of millions is a good thing". Who cares about the economy and the mountain of debt? We gots snazzy bird killin windmills.
Click to expand...

There will be no "whoops" this is not George Bush and WMD's. The science is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat.
 
PoloMalo43 said:
There will be no "whoops" this is not George Bush and WMD's. The science is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat.
Click to expand...

It's easy to make the science certain when you get a free pass to massage the data. 97% of all climatologists know that.
 
AL-Gore-Global-Warming-Cartoon.jpg
 
Hineswardkickedurpanzyass said:
then why do all of the scientists keep on making **** up? <--- serious question.
Click to expand...

Not all.

The dozens of sites you can find that bust the 97% myth, but Polly still buys into it.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

34hgpqb.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 34hgpqb.jpg
    34hgpqb.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 1
UN 1982 : World To End Before The Year 2000!

"There is only a ten-year window to act on AGW before climate Armageddon destroys humanity' - 2004 NASA’s chief scientist James Hansen

'We have hours' to prevent climate disaster -- Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party, 2009
.

----------------

Global-warming Hoax Unraveling

The global-warming agenda is increasingly being revealed for the scam it is.

There was the Climategate scandal of 2009, in which “scientists” at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were conspiring to suppress data that contradicted their global-warming agenda; there was the British judge who ruled, in a lawsuit to ban Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth from UK government schools, that the movie contained nine significant errors; there was the revelation that the claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed with the AGW (man-caused global warming) thesis was bunk.

Contrary to the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, it seems a warmer planet’s benefits far outweigh its downsides. Like eating? Note that greater temperatures probably mean more arable land. In addition, higher CO2 levels increase plant yields 30-plus percent across species; this begets better crops. This is why botanists pump the gas into their greenhouses, mind you. It’s why the age of the dinosaurs was one of dense foliage — CO2 levels were five to 10 times what they are today. The gas is not a pollutant. It’s plant food.

The irony of this is that even if the AGW thesis were correct, there would be little we could do about it. First, China and India — which together boast 36 percent of the world’s population — are rapidly building coal-fired power plants. Any Western reduction in CO2 will be dwarfed by these behemoths’ increases alone. Add to this other CO2-happy developing nations and Russia, and the fruitlessness of the uniquely Western climate-change obsession becomes apparent.

Absent true faith, an environmental crusade in Gaia’s name perhaps best fits the bill.This means that, for some, leaving the Church of Warmism is like a jihadist leaving Islam. Related to this is that when you’ve devoted a good part of your life and your passion and energy to a cause, it’s hard to admit you’re wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
 
First, China and India — which together boast 36 percent of the world’s population — are rapidly building coal-fired power plants. Any Western reduction in CO2 will be dwarfed by these behemoths’ increases alone. Add to this other CO2-happy developing nations and Russia, and the fruitlessness of the uniquely Western climate-change obsession becomes apparent.
Click to expand...

Didnt you see the thread that China says they will reduce emmissions?
 
ark steel said:
Didnt you see the thread that China says they will reduce emmissions?
Click to expand...


they can't hear you.....

lalalalala

"leaving the Church of Warmism is like a jihadist leaving Islam"
 
EdReed4Prez said:
It's easy to make the science certain when you get a free pass to massage the data. 97% of all climatologists know that.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with climate scientists doing that,It's a legit technique. Can it be twisted to be used in an negative way? Of course just visit www.wattsupwiththat.com and you'll see it in all it's full glory.

Again climate science depends on peer review, denial scientists depend on Heartland money.

So again your belief of dishonesty requires the schizophrenic framework of a world wide plot involving all the worlds scientific organizations, all the worlds scientists, and malfeasance at NASA, ESA, England's Met Office,etc.

It's so ridiculous if not for the knowledge that people like you are ignorant and just gobble up what Fox News feeds you, I would say institutionalization would be in order.
 
Last edited:
PoloMalo43 said:
There is nothing wrong with climate scientists doing that,It's a legit technique. Can it be twisted to be used in an negative way? Of course just visit www.wattsupwiththat.com and you'll see it in all it's full glory.

Again climate science depends on peer review, denial scientists depend on Heartland money.

So again your belief of dishonesty requires the schizophrenic framework of a world wide plot involving all the worlds scientific organizations, all the worlds scientists, and malfeasance at NASA, ESA, England's Met Office,etc.

It's so ridiculous if not for the knowledge that people like you are ignorant and just gobble up what Fox News feeds you, I would say institutionalization would be in order.
Click to expand...

When all of your peers are sucking at the same government tit for funding it isn't in their interests to disagree, no? If 97% of climate scientists were to denounce global warming tomorrow, how many climate scientists would be unemployed by the weekend?
 
Spike said:
AL-Gore-Global-Warming-Cartoon.jpg
Click to expand...

Since you like cartoons this one kills two birds with one strip as Confluence thinks because there is uncertainty(though he doesn't understand the context) we should do nothing.

You can just look at the pretty pictures.

Managing_Risk_med.jpg
 
EdReed4Prez said:
When all of your peers are sucking at the same government tit for funding it isn't in their interests to disagree, no? If 97% of climate scientists were to denounce global warming tomorrow, how many climate scientists would be unemployed by the weekend?
Click to expand...

Almost none. What you don't seem to understand is a lot of these people teach. The ones that don't would be snatched up by industry in the blink of an eye.
 
I like that there's nothing wrong with lying about data. If the heartland folks lied about temperatures being cooler you'd be alright with that? Since its a legit technique and all.
 
EdReed4Prez said:
I like that there's nothing wrong with lying about data. If the heartland folks lied about temperatures being cooler you'd be alright with that? Since its a legit technique and all.
Click to expand...

Bias adjustment is a legit function in data reporting, however, using confirmation bias to adjust data after the fact to support your agenda is not. For instance, today I measures CO2 readings at a stack around 5%, after applying the correct bias adjustment the readings were reported at 5.2%. these were applied by reading a zero standard and upscale gas before and after each test run. There is a pre-existing method and traceability procedures in place for this before the testing even begins. If, however, I decided to just cut out 1 data point of a 12 point test because that point wasn't agreeing with my expected readings, well that would be absolutely wrong... In the Nasa case, the data was analyzed, it was reported, it was then adjusted after the fact to exclude and adjust readings in a way that met an agenda... this is incorrect.

Now you could repeat a test a set number of times and throw out a minimum set of the outliers... that's acceptable to a point, but again this wasn't any of those cases... as is selective bias adjustment of data.. Just confirmation bias and spin
 
Stewey said:
Not all.

The dozens of sites you can find that bust the 97% myth, but Polly still buys into it.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

34hgpqb.jpg
Click to expand...



You guys are laughable. The only thing I can conclude is that you don't read enough of my other posts to understand the pain I'll bring.

Is this the survey Curry cherry picked and 'massaged'? She's either incompetent at math or just following orders. Which do you think it is?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

From that survey page 16:
Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists
are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated
they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming.Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth&Lichter 2012, Bray 2010).

So a majority of meteorology people and the ones that are trained in the science DO believe AGW is happening.

Whether the type below believe or not does not matter anyway other than from a P.R. perspective. They are not climate scientists.

Jackie%2BGuerrido%2B4.jpg


NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top