Jump to content

***Official OT MMCC/Global Warming Thread***

Recommended Posts

AmSlim22    0

A consensus means different things.

Concensus also says world is flat. So be skeptical but not cynical.

It makes sense to me that 8 billion people with machines have an effect on our world. I also am as much in favor of clean energy for pollution and health reasons as much as if not more so than for warming reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

lol, yes it does, I guess arguing that 97% thing you kept doing without even knowing what it was or where it came from was because....? I don't know. On the one hand you make this post about the world is flat consensus, on the other you argue FOR a consensus you know little about.

Why is that slim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

A consensus means different things.

Consensus also says world is flat. So be skeptical but not cynical.

It makes sense to me that 8 billion people with machines have an effect on our world. I also am as much in favor of clean energy for pollution and health reasons as much as if not more so than for warming reasons.

"The world is flat." This is an example of an observable indisputable fact.

"Human activity has an effect on the environment." This is an example of an observable indisputable fact.

Human activity, specifically the placing of excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is is the primary cause of seas rising, the melting of polar ice caps, the death of polar bears, every hurricane or tropical storm. increases in temperature that the earth cannot endure of deal with. If humans would stop producing CO2 or producing significant amounts of CO2 everything will be fine.

This is an example of opinions for which there is no consensus.

Now tell us what you think there is a consensus on.

ftr record I don't litter and try to waste as little as possible. I don't dispose of hazard waste into public drainage. I keep my thermostat at 62 at night and when I'm not at home in the winter. I don't even have air conditioning. I will have AC in my new house, but that home will be pretty much state of the art enviro friendly, xeriscaping, energy efficient build and appliances, maybe to even include solar power, if the HOA will let me. I do have a not so environmental friendly Ford F-250 with the beastly 7.3 liter diesel engine with 310,000 miles that is perfect for hauling shit and and towing and for the dogs, so nobody is environmentally perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neeek    69

I do have a not so environmental friendly Ford F-250 with the beastly 7.3 liter diesel engine with 310,000 miles that is perfect for hauling shit and and towing and for the dogs, so nobody is environmentally perfect.

you are going straight to hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

So you don't even know where that number came from but are repeating it several times just on this page.... you are good little soldier slim.

I actually used it on this page to simply ask the question of how it will change under the new administration since there are claims that # is biased. I didn't use it in any other way. Just as a benchmark that people use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

lol, yes it does, I guess arguing that 97% thing you kept doing without even knowing what it was or where it came from was because....? I don't know. On the one hand you make this post about the world is flat consensus, on the other you argue FOR a consensus you know little about.

Why is that slim?

The world is flat reference was just to point out that consensus means different thing. Obv not all 97% believe exactly the same thing. As I said, I brought up that # as a benchmark for the biased science under current administration and to ponder whether we will see that # change under new administration due to fact so many believe science is so influenced by politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

My guess is that those who answered the survey believing that man has some affect on the ecosystem will remain relatively high no matter who is in charge. What may change is how that number is used for an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

Doesn't it also make sense that in the questionnaire the look at the scientists who claim to be climate scientists and who publish a majority of their papers about climate science?

I've always thought people argue that scientists base their results on where the funding comes from and are easily influenced by govt grant money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Eisenhower farewell speech right after he warned about the military industrial complex he said this as his second warning.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

So obvious that we have arrived at this point.

It's almost as if sound science and analysis just doesn't matter anymore. The temp record is a mess and trying to garner anything useful from it is a waste of time. Might as well start over and establish some sort of consistent means of measurement.

LOL The earth has warmed 1.5 degrees + or - 2 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

Doesn't it also make sense that in the questionnaire the look at the scientists who claim to be climate scientists and who publish a majority of their papers about climate science?

I've always thought people argue that scientists base their results on where the funding comes from and are easily influenced by govt grant money.

Only the skeptics are influenced by their funding, have you not read this thread? The government funded studies are all altruistic in nature. The others are just lol Heritage and lol big oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

.8 degrees since 1900? Sounds like the most pressing crisis in human history...

Has anyone figured out the math re CO2 and China/India/third world yet? I keep asking but no one seems to know. I'd take one answer, let alone a consensus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neeek    69

Only the skeptics are influenced by their funding, have you not read this thread? The government funded studies are all altruistic in nature. The others are just lol Heritage and lol big oil.

this isn't really an unreasonable position to hold. there can be a correct and incorrect answer for a scientific question. Like big tobacco saying ciggies don't cause lung cancer back in the day, or the nfl denying CTE, or anti-vaxxers anti-vaxxing. only one side in that argument was bullshitting. we shouldn't provide a balanced narrative when one side is correct and the other is wrong, and the motives don't have to be altruistic on either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

Yes, it is also healthy to be skeptic of the skeptics based on their motivations. It has been well documented the abuse of the climate change research though. You get denied a grant to sea urchins? add global warming's effect on the sea urchin and get your funding.

It is healthy and logical to recognize the agenda driven science.

Here's one for people in your field. I'm sure you've seen the pamphlets from the AHA warning us that 2nd hand smoke increases heart disease by 25%, did you know there was no actual study to base that number on? The actual studies from that period showed a less than .0002% increase. I still see those pamphlets though. We've made policy based on that made up number. Nobody likes 2nd hand smoke though, so we don't mind it's based on made up facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

Another criticism of the realclimatescience link willy posted.

Goddard makes his own graph labeled 'fabricated station data', and shows how the % of 'fabricated' station data is climbing. "They mark the fabricated stations with an 'E'' - Goddard.

The 'E' stands for estimated, not fabricated - and they estimate that station data for different reasons. Occassionally, stations malfunction - so they throw that data away and build an estimate from an algorithm using data from nearby stations. Sometimes, stations are being retired or aren't being maintained (in part due to budget cuts for things like NASA), and they estimate that data as well. Now, that data could be getting manipulated... but it's Interesting that he uses the words 'fabricated' and 'missing' and doesn't provide any background.. things that might make all that seem more reasonable, and not so nefarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

If you drive down a road in a major city, the temperatures recorded by the banks can vary as much as 5 degrees from what I've seen. If instead of using the variable, you cherry pick the bank's data to fit your conclusion, then yes, it is nefarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

If you're cherry-picking, yes. His only evidence of cherry-picking is that some of the data is estimated. And so he goes ahead and uses the word 'fabricated' b/c it makes his blog more compelling.

If we know that when bank A has read 90degrees and bank B has read 94 degrees, over the last ten years bank C has been b/w 92 and 94 degrees 95% of the time, we can pretty safely estimate bank C's temp under those conditions.

I'm just making those #s up obv, but we cant just assume I'm fabricating evidence to fit my conclusion, when there are probably straightforward ways to reach a reasonable and confident estimate.

You don't have to trust the climate consensus or climate scientists, but I wouldn't be in any hurry at all to throw your support to this guy.. his bias isn't even remotely hidden, and he's been wrong and debunked and caught being deliberately deceptive before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

What happened was the data was "adjusted" by using bank B instead when the original data did not meet the models prediction. That isn't science, that's dishonesty. Instead of changing models, they changed the data. We should all have a problem with that.

Skepticism is healthy. I would be skeptic if anyone tried to convince me all of this pollution had no effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

you are going straight to hell.

At least I'll be heading into the flames of hell in one big bad ass old truck. Maybe I'll even coal roll the devil on my way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another criticism of the realclimatescience link willy posted.

Goddard makes his own graph labeled 'fabricated station data', and shows how the % of 'fabricated' station data is climbing. "They mark the fabricated stations with an 'E'' - Goddard.

The 'E' stands for estimated, not fabricated - and they estimate that station data for different reasons. Occassionally, stations malfunction - so they throw that data away and build an estimate from an algorithm using data from nearby stations. Sometimes, stations are being retired or aren't being maintained (in part due to budget cuts for things like NASA), and they estimate that data as well. Now, that data could be getting manipulated... but it's Interesting that he uses the words 'fabricated' and 'missing' and doesn't provide any background.. things that might make all that seem more reasonable, and not so nefarious.

Estimate? Algorithm? LOL Science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

They've been recording these temps at these sites for 100+ years in some cases. Obv technology has changed.. sites have been moved, sometimes on multiple occasions. In the past, some stations recorded their temps in the morning and others in the afternoon. In the last 30-50 years though, techniques and the instruments used have become more uniform, and if you look at the full graph in the article i posted here, you'll see that the raw and adjusted data since about 1980 are very closely aligned - the adjustments over that period are pretty small.

There are larger adjustments that have been made to the historical record, though, because people and technologies in 1900 and 1930 weren't as consistent. On average, those historical temperatures have been lowered, because many of those weather stations (mostly done on a volunteer basis) were often placed on rooftops or in confined areas that were not necessarily accurate to the temperature.

This article links to a study that concluded that the NOAA adjustments have been accurate. The raw data from the last 20 years, the NOAA adjusted data, and the data from a select 'pristine' set of weather stations (stations that haven't been moved or encroached upon by cities) are all in close agreement. And the NOAA adjusted data is still closer to the 'pristine' data than is the raw.. suggesting that the adjustments are 'doing their job'. That's the conclusion of this study anyway, and the official story.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

if the data has to be consistently adjusted to higher temps, isn't there a problem with the collection devices/thermometers/etc?

srs q.

Let me try to be more succinct. Yes, there were problems with the devices. The biggest adjustments have been to the old, outdated collection devices. Most of the adjustments made actually have lowered the temp's relative to the raw data. But adjustments to more recent data do adjust the temps slightly higher. In any case, if you graph both the raw and adjusted data for global average temperature - both data sets (raw and adjusted) show warming over the last 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jetsjets1028    10

Another criticism of the realclimatescience link willy posted.

Goddard makes his own graph labeled 'fabricated station data', and shows how the % of 'fabricated' station data is climbing. "They mark the fabricated stations with an 'E'' - Goddard.

The 'E' stands for estimated, not fabricated - and they estimate that station data for different reasons. Occassionally, stations malfunction - so they throw that data away and build an estimate from an algorithm using data from nearby stations. Sometimes, stations are being retired or aren't being maintained (in part due to budget cuts for things like NASA), and they estimate that data as well. Now, that data could be getting manipulated... but it's Interesting that he uses the words 'fabricated' and 'missing' and doesn't provide any background.. things that might make all that seem more reasonable, and not so nefarious.

I thought the E meant 5th paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

Lol, yeah I made that up. Whether it's E for fifth paragraph or for 'estimated'. The data is estimated, not 'fabricated', though I guess thats semantics to some..

blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html

The most relevant bit : "The NOAA has spent quite a bit of effort explaining the various adjustments over the years. You can click here for one very comprehensive overview of the changes, together with links to relevant papers and data. There's a shorter FAQ paper on the US temperature record here as a pdf file. When data is missing or incorrect it can be replaced, using a calculated estimate based on surrounding temperatures as recorded. It's not simply an average either."

Yes, I was weak in the heat of the argument... became what I hated I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

if the data has to be consistently adjusted to higher temps, isn't there a problem with the collection devices/thermometers/etc?

srs q.

It's not always adjusted to higher temps. Actually they change the data bc there was a bias in temps measuring that were reset in afternoon. Link i provided explained why they adjust.

What happened was the data was "adjusted" by using bank B instead when the original data did not meet the models prediction. That isn't science, that's dishonesty. Instead of changing models, they changed the data. We should all have a problem with that.

Skepticism is healthy. I would be skeptic if anyone tried to convince me all of this pollution had no effect.

The article I posted explained why they adjust pretty well. It's not what you said. That prob happens but there is also a scientific reason for adjustments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

What happened was the data was "adjusted" by using bank B instead when the original data did not meet the models prediction. That isn't science, that's dishonesty. Instead of changing models, they changed the data. We should all have a problem with that.

Skepticism is healthy. I would be skeptic if anyone tried to convince me all of this pollution had no effect.

To my understanding this is not at all what is happening and I'd be curious to see evidence if it on any sort of larger scale. I think you may be misunderstanding why they adjust data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


    • Accolades & Cashes

  • Top 10 Ranked Players

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.