Why 'Climate Change' Alarmists Will NEVER Debate Skeptics

Again, if you don't believe this figure then why are you using it to defend your own case? I can just respond that you yourself don't believe in the temperature data so that refutes your own numbers.

 

Funny. It's like if you ignore the conversation long enough, you'll simply create your own narrative by having ignored it. First, I would point out that there isn't a need to "believe in " the data. That suggests as aspect of faith, which clearly you have. Data doesn't require being believed, it requires being acceptable. As in the collection was reasonable, and that is is substantive. If the methodology is agreeable, then we accept the data as reasonable. IE, I take a thermometer out into my shady yard and on a hot day collect a temp. That temp being produced by the method of the thermometer that I can witness and record. That method then becomes reasonable and is accepted as the temperature collected at that time for that date.

Which is entirely different than having a model estimate what that temperature should be. Without having taken a collection of actual data. I know, this is heresy here, but that isn't actually reasonable. Why? Because I can program the model to estimate the temperature. Why is that important? Because we can determine, before the value is even produced what the value will be when the model runs. Which is why, so often, and egregiously those estimations are demonstrably wrong.

So I don't accept the methodology with which those values of data were determined. Who should?

So, in a very fundamental way, you are so very wrong. Purposefully ignoring the data collection methodology in an attempt to isolate the criticism of it as somehow being about a belief system.

But, more to the point. The AGW faithful, you included, seem to accept the data anyway. So, I cited the number that your oracle has provided, and simply asked, given the paucity of the evidence of the change, why then, should we hyperventilate about it. You seemingly then agree that given it's paucity that we should not. Others, however, seemingly will endlessly disagree with us on this, hence all of the BS policy for CO2 regulation for the little folks, but ostensibly, not for them.

Have you seen the justifications? It doesn't matter that Leo DiCaprio jet sets around the globe with a carbon footprint larger than a small US town. Why? Because he's proselytizing, and isn't the awesome work, right? Laughable.

 

So when you refer to climate "deniers" are you referring to those who believe that climate shouldn't ever change, like the AGW crew?

 

Which still doesn't answer the question does it? Do you think we need to hyperventilate over the change or not? If I said, for the sake of argument, I agree to the figure provided by NOAA, would that induce to you answer? I actually doubt it.

 

But your thermometer isn't directly measuring the temperature either. It's likely a thermocouple that changes it's electrical resistance and then derives the temperature based on a model that is hardcoded in the device. That device measures electricity and not the actual temperature. On the flip side using barometric pressure and geopotential heights are a far better way of measuring temperature because 1) the measurement is more representative of a 3-dimensional volume as opposed to the 1-dimensional measurement by your thermometer and 2) they don't use a model to map electrical resistive behavior to temperature and instead use the hyposometric equation which is derived mathematically from PV=nRT and F=ma EXACTLY. There is no model that used for this kind of measurement. It is a perfect and exact mapping unlike your thermometer in your backyard.

I'm not saying surface station measurements aren't useful. I'm saying that is but a small drop in the bucket of all the data we collect and it happens to be the least useful in getting a true global mean temperature. And yet, those who use surface station data using electrical resistance or interferometers (like NASA's GISS or NOAA's GlobalTemp) STILL get a result that closely matches reanalysis techniques. The difference between you and I is that I've examined all of the adjustments that they make and I agree that they are necessary while you call it fake and fraudulent without ever explaining which specific adjustment you have a problem with. Nevermind, you never explain how reanalysis (which does not adjust any of the data) seems to match the conventional datasets.

We collect upwards of 100 million observations per day which all get used to derive a global mean temperature. And yes, we do have models that estimate the global mean temperature before it happens. That's called forecasting. That's different than actually measuring the global mean temperature.

What specifically do you not like about reanalysis? And how is that hundreds of Phd experts got it so wrong and you got it so right?

I accept it not on faith but because so many people using so many completely different techniques which incorporate vastly different subsets of available data all come to the same basic conclusion. The Earth is warming.

 

No. I am referring to the total idiots who think that human kind has had no effect what so ever on the earths climate, regardless of what proof and almost every single scientist on earth says.


Those people are simply to stupid to hold a conversation with.

 

Funny. The folks I find most likely to deny anything are those who cannot accept that the climate has, does, and will in the future change. Like every AGW cultist I've ever run across.

When you say things like Man has no effect as a standard, you're inferring things that simply don't have a basis in fact. I, for example, am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the settlements of man do have localized impacts. We refer to them as heat islands. We know, for example, that certain types of pollutants (Floro/hydro carbons for example, CO, lots of things.) can, and should be managed.

I would also caution that like me, many in the scientific communities share my views/opinion. Your generalization simply is pejorative and uninformed. You make a silly conclusion based on superficial at best understanding of the dynamics in this conversation.

 

I just want to float this, hopefully thinking it could be something of discussion.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/politics/scott-pruitt-trump-jeff-sessions/index.html

 

What conversation?

Have you even read the thread?

 

Perhaps you wrote this as you said it into a mirror?

 

Well, this isn't a science forum, so maybe.

 

Scott Pruitt...isn't that the guy who told his subordinates to downplay scientific research regarding climate change?

 

Of which there is none, obviously...

...so it doesn't matter what they say, at least to anyone interested in science.

Well shame on him. He should tell them to ignore it completely, at least until climatologists demonstrate some semblance of credibility as climate forecasters.

 

There is experimental results, and people do try hard for verification.


“Initial results look great,” Obland said. “They actually look better than expected considering this is a brand-new instrument that has never flown until now. We’re usually very cautious because it’s very hard to put a new instrument together. It’s risky and there are a lot of things that have to come together exactly right,” he said.

“It was a very, very good outcome.”

https://www.nasa.gov/larc/new-tool-for-measuring-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-shows-promise

It shouldn't be a political interest to cut funding for research.

:EDIT:

And there is still this "hockey stick graph" I posted on page one:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

And there is this kitchen experiment I posted earlier:

 

Here's my non-exhaustive list of things climate forecasters got right.

The global mean temperature will increase.
That warming will be more apparent during the night as opposed to the day.
That warming will be more apparent during the winter as opposed to the summer.
The warming will not be spatially homogeneous.
The warming will be faster at the poles especially the north pole.
The diurnal temperature range will decrease.
Water vapor mixing ratios will increase.
The oceans will warm.
Sea levels will rise.
Polar sea ice extents will decrease especially at the north pole
The stratosphere will cool.

All of these points have been confirmed unequivocally. So tell me how is it that bona-fide climate scientists who do real research and who by and large have empirical data confirming these predictions are somehow less credible than deniers who have essentially gotten zero fundamental predictions like those above right? And I'm not talking about being wrong by a small amount. They are so wrong that they are wrong in the complete opposite direction for most of the items above. So it goes way beyond being only kinda wrong. They are completely wrong.

 

Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

What the hell for?

 

No. They have to give their best guess based on calculations that have hundreds (if not thousands) of variables. So jerks can scream "ah-hah!" when they get it wrong.

 

meh meh meh

 

I just wanted to post this:

 

You have highlighted why it is ridiculous to debate Deniers.