T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
You know the old saw, “Every man has his price.” I guess someone found Hansen’s price.
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
For post #282, can we have a show of hands from those who have changed their minds because of the scholarly arguments put forth here?
OP, whatever your would-be spouse thinks now, no matter what the topic, don’t marry them with the idea that you’ll ever change their mind. Their mind will change about something, be sure of that, but it probably won’t be something you had in mind when you married them!!
OP, whatever your would-be spouse thinks now, no matter what the topic, don’t marry them with the idea that you’ll ever change their mind. Their mind will change about something, be sure of that, but it probably won’t be something you had in mind when you married them!!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Bec global warming is different from the issue of regional or local warming or cooling. It has to do with the global average temperatures, the global heat imbalance. That is the important thing.James Hansen et al. 1999:
“In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the last 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”
“1988 was a temporary inconvenience compared to the repeated droughts of the 1930/s”
Funny how the same person could draw such different conclusions in such a short amount of time, considering he was supposedly looking at the very same data set.
I wonder…
Could it have had something to do with political availability of grant money…???
Why do skeptics keep pointing to “it’s getting colder here in Podunk”? Is it bec they fail to understand global climate change, or they just don’t want to understand it and the implication that they are contributing to people’s harm and deaths.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Not a peer-reviewed article in a science journal.
Here’s the dope on Steven Goddard: desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
“Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.”
I really hate not only the dishonesty of denialist industry henchmen, but even more that they are putting lives of many people at risk.
J
jbenade
Guest
No. I believe in the Seasons. Global Warming is the biggest scam perpetrated on the American People in an attempt to control us, our lifestyles. It’s a form of social engineering.And no, I’m not a crazy conspiratorial lune. I just read history.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Hansen’s OWN WORDS written in 1999. All data changed since then.James Hansen et al. 1999:
“In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the last 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”
“1988 was a temporary inconvenience compared to the repeated droughts of the 1930/s”
Funny how the same person could draw such different conclusions in such a short amount of time, considering he was supposedly looking at the very same data set.
I wonder…
J
jbenade
Guest
Political expedience.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=pmdspd
I guess record cold is not worth mentioning since it is just weather.
Only record heat is climate.
I guess record cold is not worth mentioning since it is just weather.
Only record heat is climate.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Well, they haven’t figured out how to connect our use of crude oil to the climate getting cooler, that’s all. When they do, then record cold will also be considered “climate.”
It’s all about Access to Energy.
T
TopMeadow
Guest
Thanks for posting that link.
J
jbenade
Guest
Well, they changed the narrative with their usual sleight of hand by renaming “global warming” to “climate change.” That way they’ve got their bases covered, see.
Ah, so glad to have found my roots in The Church. This stuff used to eat me up. Now it doesn’t so much because I know that I am “in this world, but not of it.”
Ah, so glad to have found my roots in The Church. This stuff used to eat me up. Now it doesn’t so much because I know that I am “in this world, but not of it.”
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
“Peer-review” is usually merely another way of saying “pal-review”.
“denialist industry henchmen” is not the language of science.
Anyone interested in science MUST read EVERYTHING … not just the advocacy stuff.
Real science has nothing to do with advocacy; real science is about discovery; real science is not about carefully selecting mismatched data and making claims that are non-sequiturs.
Real science is about open-ness; whereas advocacy is about “how do we fool them today?”
Read the East Anglia emails … anyone interested in real science MUST read the East Anglia emails. They have now been published and the thousand of them over ten years clearly show a consistent pattern of working to fool the people.
Real science is not about stonewalling; real science is about transparency. Period.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Wrong. Journals have their own reputations to maintain. Journals that allow boggus science (and there are some denialist journals that do), are just not well respected in the science community.
However, occasionally faulty articles do get thru in respected journals. Peer-review is a “necessary” step in establishing science, but it is not “sufficient.”
Flawed studies (whether by honest mistake or on purpose) are caught and corrected by others in the field. That’s how science works…it is progressive. Better evidence (and ways of analyzing that evidence) and theories replace older ones…or ones that are flawed.
What best establishes science is reality and robustness. There are many indicators from the real world that global warming is happening, not just one, two, or ten. But many. It is a very “robust” finding, supported by many different types of evidence and angles.
But if y’all want to believe in some unscientific blogger over professional climate scientists, that’s your choice. It’s a free country. However, eventually there may be Hell to pay.
Got that right. They are NOT scientists, at least not working, professional climate scientists.
Not stupid blogs. It would be a waste of tax-payer and institutional money…unless they do it in their spare time for laughs.
And scientists do look at and consider valid lines of inquiry. Such as the “galactic cosmic ray” theory – that GCRs impact clouds, which impacts climate, and cause warming. The scientists have not rejected that; they say it needs further study. But they do point out that this could not be a major factor in this current warming over the past century, since cosmic rays have not been steadily increasing (they tend to fluctuate with solar irradiance cycles).
So why do the denialist henchmen wallow in “blog science” instead of practicing real science?
Because they don’t want to inform the public about “inconvenient truths,” and they know who’s buttering their bread. Or they are just brazen ideologues that put ideology before truth. I understand some of them have supposedly proven via blog and boggus science that tobacco does not cause lung cancer, and other great things people out to know about. Some are jack of all denialist trades.
They showed that someone committed a crime. I’d say a crime against humanity, since there was nothing in them to disprove AGW, but the perps used it to bamboozle the public by making false claims the emails disproved AGW and the scientists were not doing legitimate science, with the aim of getting people not to mitigate climate change, with the result that a huge portion of life on earth could be annihilated.
The emails showed the tree ring data in recent decades (which indicated a lowering of temps) diverged from the instrumental data (which showed increasing temps), so in cutting out the recent tree ring dataset and splicing the older tree ring dataset with the more accurate recent instrumental dataset, they had to find a method (trick) to “hide the decline” (in the less accurate recent tree ring data).
And they also showed that scientists react in human ways. Considering that they have little time to spare, they get extremely irritated by a constant barrage of “freedom of information” requests meant to harrass them and derail them from doing science. (Also they were not at liberty to release data they purchased; others who want that data have to purchase it themselves.) Also, raw data needs to be adjusted, which means both adjustment to lower temps, as well as higher temps, and more often than not lower temps.
And it showed that sincere climate scientists hate purposely flawed and bogus science (beyond honest mistake science) that squeaks by peer-review.
If they seem to be “circling their wagons,” it’s because they are under siege from denialist henchmen who use every deceit in the book – from logical fallacies, to cherry-picking data and making false claims, to nit-picking minor errors that do not void the findings (nor the overall climate science findings), to slander, to outright lies – bec they cannot fight on the level playing field of honest science.
I have my own ideas as to why trees don’t do as well in a greenhouse effect world as expected, which has to do with minimum diurnal (night) temps warming faster than maximum diurnal (day) temps – which have been shown to harm some crops, humans, and others of God’s creatures – and also winters warming faster than summers (which are bad for some trees). But I’ve queried some scientists, and they really don’t know at this point why the recent tree ring data diverged (from all the other many sources of data pointing to climate change).
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
If it is not getting warmer in the US, when we are supposedly the greatest offenders when it comes to “carbon emissions” (another useless term), then what is the point of all the hoo-hah? You see, lynnvinc, your pet theory falls apart if it’s not really getting warmer in the US (which it isn’t). We were promoted as being the ones who drive the SUVs, turn our heat up in the winter, and our ACs down in the summer, so if we aren’t really affecting the climate in our own country, how could we be affecting it in the entire WORLD??
It’s just another way to take our lifestyle away from us and control us more and more, and make us feel guilty in spite of all our efforts to be good stewards of this earth that God has given to us. By the way, I think you are probably an excellent steward because you feel a responsibility to use resources in the best way possible. However, you have let your blind following of AGW get you into this ugly place where you criticize others and call them names if they don’t go along with your way of living life. In the meantime you have ignored many other factors, such as the energy it costs to make those batteries in your electric car, and where the electricity comes from in the first place, as well as the batteries’ toxicity and dangers. There is no perfect solution but you berate others from your arrogance. You call us denialists and on another thread you even accused priests of being connected to the oil business! I wish you could see how mean-spirited this is, but I am going to predict that my post will only result in yet another self-justifying response. You don’t even bother asking any of the rest of us what we actually do in our own lives, you just look down from your superior position and call us names.
The stewardship of the earth and AGW are 2 separate things. Two VERY separate things. But in your mind, they are one and the same. I assure you, we can be very good stewards of the earth yet not believe that AGW is real. The least you could do is recognize that AGW and stewardship are not the same.
J
Jessie5000
Guest
Yes I believe in global warming as do 99.( percent of all climatologists, unless they work for an oil or resource industry.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Really? Where did you get that statistic? Pulled it right out of your left sleeve did you?
What is a climatologist anyway? Where are they educated? What is the curriculum like? Do you know this? How many of these people are they? What were they doing before AGW became the theory of the moment?
Mark121359
Well-known member
T
triumphguy
Guest
So, not because they don’t believe the science then?
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Well, you know what I would have said…TheRealJuliane, you’re the limit!
Peace, Mark
Mark121359
Well-known member
- Status