Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

XquiziVex    143

I'm just glad that all the govt funding of this bs research is about to dry up.

Enjoy these last few days of 'settled science' for a few years folks. Doubt the private sector will be plunking down big bucks to keep the charade going.

Finally, we'll be free from all this man made govt hysteria...at least for a little while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just glad that all the govt funding of this bs research is about to dry up.

Enjoy these last few days of 'settled science' for a few years folks. Doubt the private sector will be plunking down big bucks to keep the charade going.

Finally, we'll be free from all this man made govt hysteria...at least for a little while.

I hope the funding doesn't dry up compeletly. There is lots we don't know about climate, but funding politically driven science is a bad idea.

Here's a question for you. If the science is settled why are they still doing research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 The biggest adjustments have been to the old, outdated collection devices.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.

And zero of those instruments show what man's contribution to warming is. We get it. Climate changes, it's what it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

And zero of those instruments show what man's contribution to warming is. We get it. Climate changes, it's what it does.

Yes Dick, thermometers cannot explain the current state of climate research. I could start listing some of the mountains of evidence all suggesting that the central ideas of MMGW hold water.. but I'm pretty sure no one can explain it to you sufficiently. You've made up your mind, I won't waste my breath.

Skepticism is healthy, but you're on another level my man. You're in denial.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

And zero of those instruments show what man's contribution to warming is. We get it. Climate changes, it's what it does.

Oh yeah right, what started this whole thing about the weather stations : Steven Goddard's claim (in willy's link) that all of the 1.5 degrees of warming in the NOAA data was fabricated. The very graph that Goddard provides (US avg temp) shows pretty significant warming even in the raw data.

And when you look at the global average temperature, both the raw data and adjusted data for the last 60 years show essentially the same amount of warming. So basically, Goddard is bullshitting his readers about all that 'fabrication'.

Yes Dick, and now you can say again 'but how much of that warming is man-made,we don't know' and 'climate changes, it's what it does'. And like I said, I could lay out the evidence for you (again, I've done it for you in the past) and you'll just find another simplistic way to dismiss or ignore the preponderance of facts.. b/c that's what feels right to you.

You're right Dick, there is no smoking gun of proof for MMGW.. keep on denying man, it's cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

What should we do?

Good question Jeff. I don't really know, I'm trying to take this one step at a time here..

I saw earlier you were saying something about the CO2 and pollution projections for countries like China and India. I remember recently reading about China's goal to lead the world in renewable energy production going forward. I'll look into it, see what I can dig up.

I'm not even trying to say the world is ending and we're all fucked (though we may be..), I do think renewable sources (or cleaner sources anyway) are obviously the future - and for a variety of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Dick, and now you can say again 'but how much of that warming is man-made,we don't know' and 'climate changes, it's what it does'. And like I said, I could lay out the evidence for you (again, I've done it for you in the past) and you'll just find another simplistic way to dismiss or ignore the preponderance of facts.. b/c that's what feels right to you.

You're right Dick, there is no smoking gun of proof for MMGW.. keep on denying man, it's cool.

You haven't shown crap. And I know I'm right. No one is denying that climate changes. LOL you greenies are unreal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

Good question Jeff. I don't really know, I'm trying to take this one step at a time here..

I saw earlier you were saying something about the CO2 and pollution projections for countries like China and India. I remember recently reading about China's goal to lead the world in renewable energy production going forward. I'll look into it, see what I can dig up.

I'm not even trying to say the world is ending and we're all fucked (though we may be..), I do think renewable sources (or cleaner sources anyway) are obviously the future - and for a variety of reasons.

they're not leading shit, they are the reason co2 is exploding (according to the scientists/graphs/stats/etc)

I'm all for spending on science to develop new tech. I'm against redic payouts to political cronies that have no effect on, well, anything.

I just have a problem when assholes tell use to use a clothesline to stop gw while they fly a private jet to an island to tell us to...use a clothesline to stop gw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

niptuck    74

Not sure about the 97% number and obv all 97% saying exact same thing. Certainly s strong concensus is fair to say.

97% of pollsters said Hillary Clinton would win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moss Boss    20

they're not leading shit, they are the reason co2 is exploding (according to the scientists/graphs/stats/etc)

I'm all for spending on science to develop new tech. I'm against redic payouts to political cronies that have no effect on, well, anything.

I just have a problem when assholes tell use to use a clothesline to stop gw while they fly a private jet to an island to tell us to...use a clothesline to stop gw.

In 2011, China emitted 8.7 billion tons of Carbon, the US 5.5 billion. By 2014, Chinese emissions rose to 10.5 billion tons and the US has levelled at about 5.4 billion tons. So yeah, Chinese co2 emissions have been booming, but the US still represents close to 20% of total global emissions.. regardless of what China does (theyre spending more on green energy research than any other country, w/e its worth), significantly reducing our own emissions could have some impact. The US is still, by a pretty large margin, the world's second-largest contributor of CO2.

Who is flying around in jets telling us to use clotheslines? Al gore? Haha I'm not going to try to defend everything al Gore does (sounds like something he might say).. but you don't think you're kind of drawing a ridiculous caricature of environmentalism in politics? Obviously though, for a real, substantial difference to be made, the changes need to be larger (than using clotheslines), and focused on energy production. And i have to admit im skeptical about any large changes coming anytime real soon. More nuclear.. more renewable sources.. But yeah, it feels ridiculous to even try to suggest alternatives in here, when I'm still trying to convince people that the trillions of tons of gases we've added to the atmosphere (in all likelihood) have an impact on climate. And that the warming trend we've seen and are seeing is (in all likelihood) greatly influenced by human activity.

We'll see what happens, should be interesting. Renewable sources will eventually win, they're going to be cheaper, more efficient and more available.. just a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

yes cause they dont like the raw data or to get a result they want.

nope, that's not it.

What should we do?

def should allow roof top solar and not let energy companies stall its use. believe this is happening in quite a few places.

i think there should be some investing in clean, renewable energy and alternative energy sources to reduce burning of fossil fuels.

i'd like to see an entire community built somewhere with input from people like Musk and university students and whoever else to plan a design a sustainable future type city/town and experiment with newer tech and efficiency in all areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jetsjets1028    10

i'd like to see an entire community built somewhere with input from people like Musk and university students and whoever else to plan a design a sustainable future type city/town and experiment with newer tech and efficiency in all areas.

good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nope, that's not it.

def should allow roof top solar and not let energy companies stall its use. believe this is happening in quite a few places.

i think there should be some investing in clean, renewable energy and alternative energy sources to reduce burning of fossil fuels.

i'd like to see an entire community built somewhere with input from people like Musk and university students and whoever else to plan a design a sustainable future type city/town and experiment with newer tech and efficiency in all areas.

Warren Buffet just put the kibosh on solar in LV, NV. He does own NV energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Renewable sources will eventually win, they're going to be cheaper, more efficient and more available.. just a matter of time.

Great! I'm all for cheaper energy and a more competitive US. But in the mean time lets stop trying to make traditional energy sources more expensive via sanction.

I guess if you can regulate the traditional energy sources so much they will eventually become more expensive than renewable. Good strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

Great! I'm all for cheaper energy and a more competitive US. But in the mean time lets stop trying to make traditional energy sources more expensive via sanction.

I guess if you can regulate the traditional energy sources so much they will eventually become more expensive than renewable. Good strategy.

don't they currently receive a bit of subsidy to make them cheaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't they currently receive a bit of subsidy to make them cheaper?

Yes but the sanctions far outweigh them. EPA regulations force coal plants to shut down. How do subs help that?

Renewable energy subs are up. Traditional Energy Subs are down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

It's too late, the earth past the point of no return last year. Now we just sit back, relax, and enjoy the time we have left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

Climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry has announced her resignation effective immediately on her blog, Climate, Etc. In her blog annoucement Curry explains her resignation:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

 

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

https://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MadProfesor    0

Them damn scientists! They are only in it to save their jobs!

An iceberg expected to be one of the 10 largest ever recorded is ready to break away from Antarctica, scientists say.

A long-running rift in the Larsen C ice shelf grew suddenly in December and now just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.

Larsen C is the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica.

Researchers based in Swansea say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.

Larsen C is about 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.

Researchers have been tracking the rift in Larsen C for many years, watching it with some trepidation after the collapse of Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden break-up of the Larsen B shelf in 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jetsjets1028    10

that sucked....MP is one of the only posters that makes me click on a thread when I see he is the last poster

Was expecting a funny cartoon and all I got was a bunch of words.

#iamdisappoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Them damn scientists! They are only in it to save their jobs!

An iceberg expected to be one of the 10 largest ever recorded is ready to break away from Antarctica, scientists say.

A long-running rift in the Larsen C ice shelf grew suddenly in December and now just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.

Larsen C is the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica.

Researchers based in Swansea say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.

Larsen C is about 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.

Researchers have been tracking the rift in Larsen C for many years, watching it with some trepidation after the collapse of Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden break-up of the Larsen B shelf in 2002.

Yep that's what happens when the climate gets warmer. Been happening on and off since the beginning of time. Oh, I almost forgot. How much of the warming is caused by man? If it weren't for the CO2 would we remain static in temp or would we be freezing right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XquiziVex    143

that sucked....MP is one of the only posters that makes me click on a thread when I see he is the last poster

Was expecting a funny cartoon and all I got was a bunch of words.

#iamdisappoint

It's funny you say this because I feel the same when I see MP. Less words monkey boy!! For some reason, I always associate him with this meme. He needs to make it his avatar:

921292

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.