Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it is a study of the effect on real estate prices from 2007 to 2016. That is the when and there is a MAP showing where.
    You obviously didn't bother to read it! No surprise there!
     
  2. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Moving the goalposts fallacy.

    The AGW hypothesis and the CAGW hypothesis are not the same thing. Nobody claims that warm blooded mammals do not warm their environment.
     
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I directly addressed the topic being discussed. Someone said that real science is falsifiable, and I pointed out that AGW theory is falsifiable.

    Well, sure. After all, the "CAGW hypothesis" is just WUWT conspiracy cult lingo. Normal people have no idea what it means. Since it's your fantasy, of course it can't be falsified.

    By the way, you should avoid using that term, being how it marks anyone using it as a member of the WUWT conspiracy cult, and thus instantly zeroes out their credibility.

    (I feel kind of bad for the WUWT crowd. They're told how special and awesome they are, and sent out to spread the good world of their faith ... and it never turns out well for them.)

    Since nobody was talking about warm-blooded mammals, how is that relevant to the conversation?

    And what's your theory of what is currently driving the earth's climate changes, and what hard data would disprove that theory?
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  4. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Humans are warm-blooded mammals.

    And AGW is simply not a thing that needs to be mitigated unless you claim that it is Catostropic AGW, hence the term CAGW.

    Understand, or no?
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and it has been falsified, which is why temperature data now have to be falsified to preserve AGW theory.
    Same as the factors that have driven them all along, with the addition of a derisory contribution from anthropogenic CO2, CH4, etc.
    The long-predicted but not-going-to-happen disappearance of arctic sea ice would be a start. Certainly temperatures that continue to be well within Holocene norms won't do it.
     
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Flat-earthers, antivaxxers and scientologists also use the "all the data is faked!" line. It's standard cult behavior, and when you hear it, you know to ignore the speaker.
     
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're telling us that any time the topic is humans, someone should bring up the fact that humans are warm-blooded mammals.

    A normal person, however, would say that it has nothing to do with the conversation.

    And that's still WUWT cult lingo, which nobody should use if they don't want to be identified as a WUWT conspiracy cult member.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not all.
    "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
     
  9. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if the warming that all of us warm blooded mammals do to our environments is not going to be catastrophic, then what is your reason for trying to stop us warm blooded mammals from warming our environment in the first place?

    Are you one of those narcissistic nutjob hypocrite misanthropes?
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The warming humans are causing has nothing to do with being warm-blooded. Thus, it's just weird to keep declaring that "warm-blooded" is relevant. It's like saying "air-breathing" or "bipedal". While correct, it has no bearing on the conversation.

    That's your goofy claim, not mine. Since it's not my claim, the question doesn't apply to me.

    As your question would seem to only apply to you, you're the one who needs to answer it.

    My best guess is you're using this stupid troll routine as an excuse to deflect from the question you couldn't answer, so I'll just ask the question again.

    What's your theory of what is currently driving the earth's climate changes, and what hard data would disprove that theory?
     
  11. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not the first time that experts, in some narrow field of expertise, were left to sincerely believe that life of Earth as we know it depends on their prognostications and prescriptions. I have personally heard politicians and preachers make the same claim.
     
  12. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are ignorant of science. All warm blooded mammals warm their environment.
     
  13. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My take on this with the modeling why not assume the center of the models not the extreme ends the big bulb in the center on any bell curve which is likely o be what will happen. And you wand carbon reduction we have a reliable technology - nuclear which the climate Change supporters don't want.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2020
  14. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In case you haven't noticed, people don't care about climate change, they care about having groceries and toilet paper.
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You support my ongoing point about deniers having no sense of scale.

    Yes, warm-blooded creatures warm their environment. Since that has less than a millionth of the effect that greenhouse gas warming, it's totally irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    YALFEA (Yet Another Lame Flat Earther Accusation)
     
  17. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you continue to warm the environment?
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  18. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course data has been faked. If you had bothered to read the leaked CRU emails you would already know that. One obvious specific example is the Chinese station data. Yes, all actual thinking people who are not totally ignorant of China's history knew damn well that there was no ****ing station data during the heyday super-leftist anti-science years of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Those people were all ****ing killed.

    Us actual scientists knew that. You loopy cultists did not. You people are literally doomsday cult members. You just don't know it because cult members practically never know that they are in a doomsday cult.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact, AGW theory is science so hard it actually has been disproved with many types of hard evidence!
    False. I have given an answer: temperature following CO2. It hasn't and doesn't. The millennium-scale Holocene temperature changes have occurred without significant CO2 variation, and what variation has been recorded has followed temperature rather than leading it.
    No problem. The earth's climate -- more specifically, change therein -- is driven by numerous complex natural and artificial processes and feedbacks, some of them regular periodic cycles based on physical rotation like the year and Milankovic cycles, some of them non-periodic cycles based on feedback loops like the solar and ocean circulation cycles, some of them one-way trends like the sun's increasing main sequence output, some of them apparently unpredictable, like geomagnetism, vulcanism, continental drift and comet/asteroid impacts, some of them context-dependent like ice-albedo feedback, CO2-ocean temperature feedback and water vapor-cloud feedback, and some of them under human control, like deforestation and emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel consumption.

    Hard data disproving that theory would be something like CO2 consistently leading temperature in the paleoclimate record, rather than vice versa. The claim that all these factors except anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been ruled out as possible principal factors in the return to more normal Holocene temperatures in the last 200 years -- which is the essence of AGW theory -- is of course anti-scientific garbage.
     
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet you've never been able to show such evidence, and never will.

    The point I take from that is that you're detached from reality.

    [​IMG]

    That's consistent with AGW theory. A great thing about current climate theory is how it works so well across every epoch of earth climate history.

    Those natural factors are driving the earth towards cooling, yet the earth is strongly warming now. Hence, it's not natural factors.

    There, you faceplant by failing to understand CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

    And there you go, topping it off by invoking fairy magic. You won't tell us what natural factor is warming the earth. You just wave your hands around and say it has to be something natural, because that's what your religion states.

    That's not science. Science would be you naming the specific natural factor that's causing the earth to warm strongly now, and backing it up with evidence, and making some predictions based on that theory. Please proceed.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have provided ample evidence, and there is more below.
    Sorry, even your absurdly cherry-picked graph using the known-fake GISS data shows temperature does not follow CO2: CO2 rose while temperature fell from 1900-1917, and again 1950-1964. Here's a better and more complete graph:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06...ed-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/

    It clearly shows temperature and CO2 went in opposite directions for more than 30 years ~1880-1912, and again for more than 30 years ~1943-78.
    No, of course it isn't.
    No, of course it doesn't, as I just proved to you.
    Claim without evidence. You can't even identify what they all are, let alone their lags and feedbacks, and the only one that is definitely driving cooling is reduced solar activity.
    No it isn't. It hasn't warmed strongly since 1998 -- except in systematically falsified data like GISS.
    Refuted above.
    It's both. But the feedback is much stronger: i.e., a given proportion of change in temperature causes a larger proportionate change in CO2 than a given proportion of change in CO2 causes in temperature. That means CO2 does not drive temperature but rather the reverse.
    No, that's another fabrication on your part.
    No, that is false. I have told you many times that the sun WAS primarily warming the earth -- when the earth was warming back in the late 20th century.
    Ah, no. Natural explanations are by definition not religious.
    Yes, it is.
    No. Science would be you presenting some empirical evidence -- other than temperature data known to have been systematically falsified by NASA/NOAA to match AGW theory -- that the earth actually IS warming strongly now. Because ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS like the extent of arctic sea ice, frost-free days, and land surface temperature records at sites where there has been no change in local human activities or land use say it is not.
    Done. I predicted more than 10 years ago that the claimed accelerating decline in arctic sea ice was merely the down-phase of a cycle that would end and reverse before 2020, and that has happened just as I predicted. The AGW theory's prediction that the decline in arctic sea ice would accelerate, and the arctic become ice-free in the summer by now, has been empirically falsified.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2020
  22. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since nobody ever said or implied CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, that's consistent with AGW theory. Your refusal to accept reality does not affect reality.

    You accept the "faked" data there. To be consistent, you'd have to reject all data on the topic, unless you can tell us specifically how you identify faked data. Make sure your criteria is something other than "any data which I don't like at the moment is faked, though I may say that fake data is fine at some other time".

    You keep telling this story that someone says CO2 is the only thing driving climate. That's not the case, that's never been the case, and it's wildly dishonest of you to keep pretending that's the case. If you can't address the actual science, just admit it, instead of attacking a strawman.

    Go check on how Milankovitch cycles work. There's a fast warmup coming out of the glacial period, then a slow cooldown into the next glacial period. The cooldown started 6000 years ago. Natural cycles would have had the earth slowly cooling down into the next glacial period in 20,000 - 50,000 years.

    Then why did WUWT just accept it? It must be lonely being the last person in the world who understands the nature of the vastsecretglobalsocialistplot.

    As we see CO2 driving climate now, the data says your unsupported claim there is wrong.

    The sun is cooling while the earth is warms strongly, so your theory fails. And no, you can't invoke the oceans as magical heat storage, because the oceans are warming strongly now as well, and your theory would require that the oceans be cooling now.

    But you don't have any explanation. You have a failed theory about the sun, some denial of basic reality, and a lot of handwaving.

    Yes, just as flat-earthers claim there's no proof of the round earth. Nobody pays any attention to them either.

    All of those things show warming.

    For example.
    https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/frost-free-season
    ---
    The last occurrence of 32°F in the spring has been occurring earlier in the year, and the first occurrence of 32°F in the fall has been happening later. During 1991-2011, the average frost-free season was about 10 days longer than during 1901-1960.
    ---

    This would be where you run from the data by calling it fraudulent. Please proceed.

    The ongoing decline of sea ice has been observed and confirmed, so we can tally another correct prediction of AGW theory, and a failure of your theory. The data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

    If you didn't just make that up, it shouldn't be a problem for you to show the consensus prediction of ice-free Arctic summers right now. Please don't try to weasel out of your big lie by showing a claim from one random person, since everyone would instantly see right through such dishonesty.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your lack of education in genuine empirical science is showing. Data can easily be consistent with theories that are nevertheless wrong. You asked me what evidence I would consider persuasive support for the theory that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature. I told you that temperatures consistently following CO2 would be persuasive. But as the graphs indisputably show, temperatures have not consistently followed CO2. Therefore, the data do not persuasively support the AGW hypothesis. Those particular data can't be said to falsify the theory because the overall trends are similar. But you'd also see a similar trend in global production of thermometers.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    I didn't say I accepted it. I merely cited it to prove that even the faked data do not add up to persuasive support for the hypothesis that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperatures.
    Nonsense. Your lack of education in empirical science is showing again. There are myriad ways data can be faked, and probably even more ways to tell it has been faked. The only way to identify faked data is to be vigilant, and look for things that don't add up logically and/or methodologically -- like data "adjustments" that coincidentally match the theory the data are supposed to be testing. Look, you don't know any science, but maybe an analogy from the business world will help you understand: if you ask an auditor to tell you specifically how they identify fake ledger entries in a company's books, they will not be able to tell you. It's just a matter of being alert and suspicious, knowing what the correct procedures are, asking for paper trails, and not taking things at face value.
    Please provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect.

    Thought not.
    No, what's wildly dishonest is you pretending I'm pretending that's the case.
    Huh? That's it? Milankovitch cycles are the only natural factor you can describe as having a cooling effect??

    BWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!

    You just cruelly exposed your innocence of the relevant science again. Milankovitch cycles are far too slow to have any detectable effect on the century-scale variation we are talking about. You need to address factors like solar variation, ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, the geomagnetic field, cloud cover, etc., etc.
    They didn't "accept" it. They just analyzed it to see what it said, like any other data that comes along.
    But we don't. CO2 continues to climb exponentially -- until a month ago, anyway -- while temperature is flat.
    Only the systematically faked data.
    No. The earth is not warming strongly -- or at all -- despite exponential increase in CO2, so your theory fails.
    The oceans are not warming strongly, as proved by the increase in arctic sea ice.

    Your whole edifice of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is now dependent on fake temperature data from NASA/NOAA. It will not be possible to keep up that charade much longer.
    False. I just don't have a complete explanation, and neither does anyone else.
    False. It's not a failed theory, and I am not the one screaming about a self-evidently non-existent climate "crisis" or "emergency."
    Of course: the earth warmed significantly during the 20th century because the sun was more active than it has been for millennia, and the earth was recovering to more normal Holocene temperatures after the coldest 600y period in the last 10,000 years. They most certainly do not show recent warming -- i.e., since 2012, when arctic sea ice bottomed.

    An institution calling itself globalchange.gov does not inspire much confidence in the objectivity of its data.
    Because the earth warmed during the 20th century, especially the last 30 years of it. Duh.
    It's not fraudulent. It just doesn't say what you claim it says. That is normal, routine, and expected from anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers.
    No, it has been conclusively refuted. Sea ice has increased since 2012, and has been higher this year than in any year since 2015:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Or we could, if only your claims were not empirically false.

    The actual data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.
    "One random person"?? Al Gore can't really be called a random person, as he received a Noble Peace Prize for leading the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria movement. He predicted in 2009 that the arctic would be ice-free in 2014.

    James Hansen is hardly a random person either: he is the head climate "expert" at NASA, and one of the leaders of the anti-fossil-fuel suicide cult. In 2008 he predicted the arctic would be ice-free by 2018.

    Peter Wadhams is not one random person either; he is head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, and author of numerous hysterical anti-CO2 books and articles. He predicted in 2013 that the arctic would be ice-free by 2018.

    Wieslaw Maslowski is also not very random: he is a researcher at the Naval Postgraduate School who presented his findings to the American Geophysical Union in 2007 that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.
     
  24. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.85 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.
     
  25. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    upload_2020-4-7_17-12-39.png
     

Share This Page